Case law

Carnett, IV v. Davidson

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Sep 24, 2025

However, the bank records from the Defendant’s business, Jeff Davidson Stone LLC7, clearly contradict this. … Fraudulent intent can be established by a showing of . . . the debtor’s reckless disregard for the truth of his statements.

In Re General Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local 890

225 B.R. 719 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 1998

Such a result is clearly consistent with the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code, and there was no evidence suggesting that the Plan was intended to accomplish some different or contrary aim. … This Court has been limited to some extent by the way in which the parties have presented the ease — Debtor called seven witnesses, of whom one was qualified as an expert, whereas Creditor called none; Debt- or was represented

Auto Trakk, LLC v. East Shore Auto, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2022

Dealer Resources’ Answer consisted mainly of general denials, but it did assert (1) that the sales of the Vehicles to Auto Trakk were outside the ordinary course of business because Auto Trakk does not qualify as a “good … That case, however, says nothing of the sort and clearly identifies “proceeds of the sale” as the money paid by the buyer to the seller in exchange for the thing sold.

In Re Schlichtmann

375 B.R. 41 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2007

Under the agreement, two funds were to be established and distributed. … The evidence does not rise to the level of establishing either (a) or (b).

Wolfson

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2026

A Yes, does it qualify and does it meet the credit policy. … Indeed, those backstops clearly identified a judgment in favor of American Express. 1st Colonial Ex. 68.

Brock v. Barlow (In Re Brock)

58 B.R. 797 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 1986

. § 362 clearly require a creditor to seek relief from the provisions of the automatic stay or proceed at peril, a discussion of these provisions as they relate to state court contempt proceedings arising out of domestic … Accordingly, Barlow could not have proceeded even against property that was not property of the estate and belonged only to Brock since the determination of the debt in this case establishes that the obligation to H.F.C.

Bobby Lee Smith

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 28, 2022

An exemption is presumed to be valid, and the objecting party, here the Trustee, bears the initial burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption and establish by 1The Debtor testified that he had driven the golf cart … As stated above, there is no Oklahoma precedent on the identical issue presented to this Court, as to whether a golf cart can qualify as an exempt “motor vehicle” within the definition of 31 O.S. § 1(A)(13).

TRU Creditor Litigation Trust v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 21, 2022

Thus, the burden is on UPS to establish that it was a Released Party as defined in the Settlement Agreement and Plan just as it is to establish that there are no material facts in dispute. … UPS clearly meets both criteria. It was owed money by the Debtors at the time of their bankruptcy filings, and it extended credit to the Debtors after their filings.

TRU Creditor Litigation Trust v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 29, 2022

Thus, the burden is on UPS to establish that it was a Released Party as defined in the Settlement Agreement and Plan just as it is to establish that there are no material facts in dispute. … UPS clearly meets both criteria. It was owed money by the Debtors at the time of their bankruptcy filings, and it extended credit to the Debtors after their filings.

Randall v. Navient Solutions

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Jun 21, 2021

Rather, the Court agrees with those decisions allowing a partial discharge of student loan debt when the debtor has established undue hardship. … The language “to the extent” in sections 523(a)(2) and (a)(7) qualifies what might be nondischargeable in the first instance under those subsections.

In re CS Mining, LLC

574 B.R. 259 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jul 27, 2017

Noble argues that the WUMI Motion should be denied to the extent it establishes the WUMI Claim as allowed due to the pending disputes surrounding the parties pre-petition lending . arrangements. … The last exception applies when the decision was clearly wrong and is highly unjust. See Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 647 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 2011).

Klein

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 2026

With respect to this misrepresentation, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Defendant intentionally fostered the impression that he was a licensed mechanic. … Clearly, Newman deliberately fostered the impression that he was qualified, able, and willing to complete the necessary truck upgrades.

William Barrier Roberts

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Nov 18, 2022

This also, according to the authorities, must be clearly and convincingly shown in such cases. … Roberts clearly believed that the Debtor would either repay her certain funds, or that they would somehow profit from the Debtor’s business pursuits. Ms.

1604 Sunset Plaza, LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Apr 8, 2022

Supreme Court: Once the movant under § 362(d)(2) establishes that he is an undersecured creditor, it is the burden of the debtor to establish that the collateral at issue is … PB has presented no evidence establishing that the 1604 Sunset Property is declining in value. Therefore, PB has not established that it is entitled to stay relief based upon a lack of adequate protection.

Stranz v. Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. (In Re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.)

281 B.R. 154 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 31, 2002

Clearly, the narrowest construction consistent with the Constitution likely would be the correct construction there. … That allegation (if proved) qualifies Plaintiffs Stranz and Kemp (if they otherwise prevail) not only for equitable relief (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)) but for damages as well (see 42 U.S.C. § 1981a). 12 That fact *163 sufficiently

Wells v. Salmo (In re Select One, Inc.)

556 B.R. 826 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 13, 2013

The Debtor’s 2010 tax return (exhibit 2) clearly showed that the Debtor was insolvent. … The Defendants sought to qualify Sheena has an expert in valuation.

In Re City of Columbia Falls

143 B.R. 750 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Jul 31, 1992

The City is clearly neither an elected official of the debtor SID’s, nor a relative of such an elected official, and thus those categories may be eliminated. … Whether or not the City has the ability to make personnel decisions, it clearly has operational control of the debtors.

In Re Hanson Industries, Inc.

90 B.R. 405 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 18, 1988

Applicants under section 503(b)(3) and (4) have the burden of establishing their entitlement to an award by a preponderance of the evidence. … Steven Hanson quite clearly reacted in this fashion to the petition. His unsecured creditors should not suffer by reason of this attitude.

Nu Ride Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London Subscribed

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 5, 2025

Mut., 2012 WL 4755209, at *5 (granting a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and noting that even when a plan clearly and unambiguously reserves jurisdiction for a specific … ‘[S]tate courts are qualified to interpret the language of bankruptcy plans and orders and routinely engage in such interpretation.’”). See also, Icco v.

Adelphia Communications Corp. v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.)

365 B.R. 24 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 11, 2007

They contend that the second prong of the Wagoner Rule — -which immunizes defendants from liability for otherwise actionable wrongful conduct on in pari delicto grounds, by imputation to a bankruptcy trustee or deputized … But the pleaded facts do not satisfactorily establish exceptions here.