Case law

Vincent Properties, Inc. v. Five Star Partners, L.P. (In Re Five Star Partners, L.P.)

193 B.R. 603 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 26, 1996

The words “[i]f the trustee, under section 362, 363 or 364 of this title, provides adequate protection” in section 507(b) convey clearly the sense that the trustee is affirmatively taking action by supplying value to the … It does not establish such a claim by pointing out that it may end up paying what might have been an administrative expense, particularly where the confirmed plan provides that such an administrative expense will in fact

Veit

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 15, 2026

;‘extrinsic evidence of fraudulent intent is required to establish fraud.’”38 A debtor’s 32 Rosen v. … Plaintiffs clearly believe that Defendant should have characterized her debts as primarily consumer debts, and that her failure to do so was a knowing, fraudulent, and material false oath.

Obed Saul Barragan Reyes - Adversary Proceeding

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 15, 2020

However, it is well established that the issuance of a “bad check” is insufficient, on its own, to establish that the debt is non- dischargeable. KC Coring & Cutting Construction, Inc. v. … In the present case, it is undisputed that there clearly were such representations. F.

In re Bradley

495 B.R. 747 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 16, 2013

Contrary to the representations of the Firm, the debtor in fact qualified for Chapter 7 relief. … He clearly did not care whether they were properly represented at the meetings of creditors.

City Center Wichita Falls, LLC v. Harwell, Jr

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 29, 2024

Id. at 218 (“Once it is established that specific money or property has been obtained by fraud, however, ‘any debt’ arising therefrom is excepted from discharge”); see also Archer v. … Therefore, the HVAC Subcontract does not qualify as a “residential construction contract” under Tex. Prop.

Two Rivers Irrevocable Trust

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 17, 2023

The evidence establishes that Two Rivers Trust has simply existed since its inception. … In that case, the court said that it did not need to decide which approach was correct because under any of the test, the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding bad faith.

Kirtley, Trustee v. Mabrey Bank

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 28, 2022

Del. 2011) (“The established case law is clear that a debtor may grant a security interest in collateral that the debtor does not actually own if the owner of such collateral consents to such an arrangement.”), aff’d, 476 … Judge Nugent correctly found that an owner/member of an LLC had no rights in the specific property owned by the LLC that would qualify as “rights in collateral” under the Kansas version of § 9-203 of the UCC.19 Clinkingbeard

Kenneth W Worden and Patricia M Worden

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Jul 11, 2023

To establish bad faith, the movant must satisfy a two-pronged test by a preponderance of the evidence. … The timing of the filings clearly delayed NG’s enforcement efforts. But those facts do not tell the whole story.

700 Trust

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida · Dec 27, 2024

By doing so, the Court makes no determination as to whether 700 Trust qualifies as a debtor eligible to file a Chapter 11 petition. … Such debtor needs to establish a change in circumstances or that there is good cause to have the stay imposed.

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

108 B.R. 901 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 29, 1989

Eastern has established that it is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. … (vi) A likelihood of success on the merits on the part of Eastern in establishing the harm to the reorganization was established. (vii) The balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of Eastern.

United States of America v. Saavedra

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 10, 2022

The first standard, i.e., that Defendant had actual knowledge that the job placement reports were false, clearly satisfies the intent requirement of § 523(a)(2)(A). … Deliberate ignorance of the truth of a representation, or “willful blindness,”5 also qualifies as intent to deceive under § 523(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., United States v.

Structured Investments Co. v. Dunlap (In Re Dunlap)

458 B.R. 301 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 13, 2011

Dunlap apparently qualified for the Lump Sum. Upon written memorialization of the agreement between Mr. … The Court established a trial date of May 23-24, 2011.

Ries v. Archer

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2022

Under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, an individual may only qualify as a new producer for three years; once one family member had been listed as a new producer for three years, Archer would instruct another family member … The testimony of the witnesses at trial clearly establishes that Archer was the ultimate grantor of any gift of the Moore County Farm to the Archer Siblings. 16.

In Re Project Orange Associates, LLC

432 B.R. 89 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 1, 2010

Syracuse maintains that Project Orange was required to provide it steam pursuant to the New York Public Service Law to qualify for this advantageous rate. (Fellows Aff. at ¶ 9) (citing N.Y. Pub. SeRv. … tactics employed by the debtor in frustrating and delaying the plaintiffs attempts to evict it, in the absence of adequate protection for the plaintiffs interest in the property, this determination [to lift the stay] was clearly

Christy Carmen Hammond

United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Mar 16, 2022

The Court considers this evidence sufficient to establish that Mr. … Rule 7001 but would clearly fail on the merits. If the Funds have lost their status as separate property, then Mr.

In re Arce Riverside, LLC

538 B.R. 563 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 2015

Penn overlooks the qualifying language in the statute that the broker to be exempt in a present transaction must have been the broker in the prior transaction. … And clearly Dayani could have memorialized in writing and in fact what he stated at trial was his intention, namely that Dayco act for Penn. He did not, and it did not.

Golden Mane Acquisitions, Inc. v. 100 Wall Street Associates (In Re Golden Mane Acquisitions, Inc.)

243 B.R. 773 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Jun 1, 1999

To establish an essential element for recovery under implied contract, the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendants had a legal obligation to pay the taxes. … The first section of the act establishing the unit system of assessment for the qualifying counties reads: The purpose of this chapter is to provide for a more convenient, economical and uniform system of assessing and collecting

TRU Creditor Litigation Trust v. Raether

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 27, 2022

‘clearly erroneous.’” Id. The Trust places great reliance on Smith v. … When directors are grossly negligent or breach multiple duties, including the duty of loyalty, then the exculpatory provision does not immunize directors for their breach of the duty of care. Miller v.

Herzog v. SunarHauserman (In Re Network 90º, Inc.)

98 B.R. 821 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 1989

Cross-motions for summary judgment do not require the court to decide the case on those motions; the court can deny both motions if both parties have failed to meet the burden of establishing no genuine issue of material … While precedent does not clearly show that the earmarking rationale applies to postpet-ition transfers as well as prepetition transfers, the doctrine logically applies.

Philipsen

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 19, 2026

And here the Trustee clearly acted pursuant to and within the scope of this authorized discretion. … The Court might conclude that this situation alone establishes the irreparable harm factor.