Case law

In Re Kerr

65 B.R. 739 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Aug 1, 1986

Hutton & Company, testified that the McClean pension plans were established as ERISA-qualified Keogh accounts. 2 The debtors were granted leave to join E.F. … . § 78-23-6 (3) is clearly a question of fact requiring a further evidentiary hearing.

In Re Braley

103 B.R. 758 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 31, 1989

, is smoking too many cigarettes, his wife and daughter, too, his wife is committed to Alcoholics Anonymous, his teenage children require braces and, shame of shames, they are just living a mite too high on the hog 2 to qualify … They are immune from attack under these provisions. We neither beg it nor decide it, but the validity of Section 707(b) may be subject to attack on these grounds.

United States ex rel. Kemper Securities Group, Inc. v. Clark (In re Kazi)

165 B.R. 246 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 24, 1994

Neither the trustee nor Kemper Securities (at that time, Blunt, Ellis & Loewi) filed objections to exemptions within the time limits established by Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b). … “The law of the case will not be enforced where it is clearly erroneous or where doing so would produce an injustice.” Redfield, 818 F.2d at 605 .

In Re Weatherley

169 B.R. 555 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1994

In order to succeed under § 362(d)(1), the IRS must establish “cause,” such as lack of adequate protection of a security interest or of any other “special interest” which it establishes that it has in the Debtor’s property … It would appear that, despite the general immunity of the IRS for monetary liability under the Bankruptcy Code, see United States v.

In Re Thatcher

167 B.R. 466 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 6, 1994

By adding the words “or either, or other person’s dependent upon such person,” the legislature clearly indicated that neither the spouse nor children had to be dependents of the insured in order to qualify as beneficiaries … It is an established principal that exemption statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the debtor. In re Lester, 141 B.R. 157, 163 (S.D.Ohio 1991).

Burke v. State of Georgia Department of Revenue (In Re Burke)

285 B.R. 534 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Sep 21, 2001

Subsequently, Georgia filed a motion to dismiss based upon sovereign immunity. … Clearly, they intended to send the collection letter and file a fieri facias 2 .

In Re McNealy

31 B.R. 932 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 1983

The facts establish clearly that the failure to complete payments under the Plan was not due to circumstances for which Kathryn should be held accountable. 11 U.S.C. § 1328 (b)(1). … The facts do not establish clearly that it would be impractical to propose and obtain approval of a modification of the plan in accordance with section 1329 to increase or *935 reduce the amounts of payments on the claims

In Re Shailam

144 B.R. 626 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Aug 25, 1992

established by a corporation, which is qualified under section 401 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, ... shall be considered a trust which has been created by or which has proceeded from a person … Its purpose is to “establish pension regulation as exclusively a federal concern.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 , -, 111 S.Ct. 478, 482 , 112 L.Ed.2d 474 .

In Re McDonald

100 B.R. 598 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · May 1, 1989

The debtor has established his homestead at the Ibis Isle residence he occupies. As the Florida court has made clear, the debtor has the burden of proof as to his intent. … In accordance with the holding in In re Lichstrahl, 750 F.2d 1488, 1490 (11th Cir.1985), this *600 plan clearly would not qualify as a spendthrift trust excluded from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 (c)(2).

In Re Westfall

365 B.R. 755 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 17, 2007

Clearly, “price” and “value given” may include an amount greater than the actual value of the collateral. … Clearly, the dual status rule was adopted in commercial transactions. See O.R.C. § 1309.103(F).

In Re Monro

282 B.R. 841 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 6, 2002

(iii) The plan or contract is not qualified under the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986,” 100 Stat. 2085 , 26 U.S.C. § 1 , as amended. … However, as the above language clearly shows, there exist significant differences between paragraphs (A)(10)(a) and (A)(10)(b).

Andresen & Arronte, PLLC v. Hill (In Re Hill)

425 B.R. 766 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 23, 2010

As previously discussed, the Firm established proximate cause of damages but has *778 failed to establish either a false misrepresentation or justifiable reliance. … Clearly, the Firm closed its eyes to the Hills’ inability to pay. The Firm failed to establish reasonable reliance pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B).

In Re Leimbach

99 B.R. 796 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 1989

It was established by a trust agreement with Banc-Ohio National Bank. … Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(10)(c) clearly provides for such entitlement and no showing was made that those funds were deposited to evade debts.

In Re Cohn-Phillips, Ltd.

193 B.R. 757 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 4, 1996

The Petitioning Creditors have the burden of establishing a prima facie case that a bona fide dispute does not exist. … Out of the four Petitioning Creditors, only Marina Shores may qualify under § 303(b)(2). We conclude that Marina Shores does not qualify to file an involuntary petition under § 303(b)(2).

In Re Berwick Black Cattle Co.

394 B.R. 448 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 23, 2008

This is not “blanket immunity” for all times, all transgressions, and all omissions. Nor does the immunity affect matters beyond the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court or unrelated to the reorganization itself. … That notice was clearly deficient, however. Even if it had been adequate, notice of a substantively inappropriate release cannot transform it into an appropriate one.

In Re Goldberg

59 B.R. 201 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 1986

The Partnership additionally established a Keogh Plan with Sooner Federal Savings & Loan Association (Sooner Plan) in 1979. … To the contrary, pension benefits are specifically treated under the Code’s exemption provision, clearly indicating that they were intended and assumed to be part of the estate ...

Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Pullman Construction Industries, Inc.)

186 B.R. 88 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 30, 1995

N.D.Ill.1993) (Marovich, J.), appeal dismissed, 23 F.3d 1166 (7th Cir.1994), and pursuant to the subsequent enactment of 11 U.S.C. § 106 (effective Oct. 22, 1994), the United States cannot raise the defense of sovereign immunity … With regard to the fifth contested payment of $119,716.00, Pullman clearly designated that the payment was applicable to trust fund liabilities alone.

Eagan v. Household Finance Corp. (In Re Eagan)

16 B.R. 439 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1982

The subject of nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest lien avoidance is separately and clearly set out. … Having established this it is difficult to comprehend why he should then be limited in his application of the exemption provisions just as any other debtor might.

In Re Wydner

454 B.R. 565 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York · Jul 11, 2011

that the plain meaning of Section 522(d)(10) indicated that the exemption of benefits ended once a debtor received the benefits pre-petition and deposited them into a bank account, even if the benefits are segregated and clearly … plan in bankruptcy, by making it clear that ERISA qualified plans are spendthrift trusts.

Matter of Woods

59 B.R. 221 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 31, 1986

It is undisputed that the debtor established the IRA herein and that the debtor is not an “employer” or “self-employed” as required by the statute. … The debtor’s Beloit Corporation plan was thus a qualified exempt plan under WIS.STAT. § 815.18(31). B.