Case law

Adams v. Adams (In Re Adams)

241 B.R. 880 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 1999

In this case, however, there is absolutely no doubt that the Plaintiff has met this burden as the facts of this case clearly shows that on November 18, 1998, the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, through an entry of divorce … It should be noted for the record that the attorney representing the Defendant in the Parties’ divorce action never actually prepared the qualified domestic relations order as required by the state court.

In Re Atallah

95 B.R. 910 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1989

In addition, even if ERISA “qualification” would exempt a retirement plan trust fund from property of the estate, it has not been established on the present record that the Debtor’s IRAs are so qualified. … The assets of a Keogh plan, in contrast, are clearly assets of the estate.

In re Anderson

496 B.R. 812 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 26, 2013

No property can be exempted (and thereby immunized), however, unless it first falls within the bankruptcy estate. … In 1985, Florida amended its homestead law such that the condominium, which had not previously qualified for a homestead exemption, became eligible for an exemption.

Matter of Hill

5 B.R. 79 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 5, 1980

There was no state court finding or determination in the antitrust-litigation so no established offset. … Cargill, Incorporated is clearly the holder of a claim against each of the Hills in an amount clearly in excess of the $5,000.00 requirement of 11 U.S.C. Section 303 (b).

Ray v. Oregon Ex Rel. Construction Contractors Board (In Re Ray)

355 B.R. 253 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2006

The movant has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). … Accordingly, trial will be held regarding damages, and the defense of qualified immunity by Defendants Smith and Harkins which was alluded to in Defendants’ memo in support.

In re Federated Department Stores, Inc.

135 B.R. 973 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 1992

First, there are claims which would qualify as abandoned property claims as of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. … Third, there are claims which would qualify as abandoned property claims after confirmation of the debtors’ plan.

In Re Carterbland

382 B.R. 743 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2008

domestic relations order ("QDRO") (as defined in [Internal Revenue] Code Section 414(p)) approved pursuant to procedures established by the Plan Administrator. … Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Plan shall comply with any domestic relations order that, in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator, is determined to be a qualified domestic relations order (as defined

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Megan Racine Associates, Inc. (In Re Megan-Racine Associates, Inc.)

180 B.R. 375 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Mar 24, 1995

Thus, an artificial market is established whereby public utilities purchase electric energy at a certain rate from QFs pursuant to a power purchase agreement. … The Court denies the motion because at this juncture the record does not clearly demonstrate a right to judgment.

In Re Coplan

156 B.R. 88 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 30, 1993

The Coplans’ testimony on these points is not credible. 2 The evidence clearly establishes that the business was deteriorating in the months immediately preceding the move. … Besides being an unworkable administrative nightmare to the court, it is also clearly incompatible with the legislative purpose in allowing the establishment of an IRA account for a non-working spouse.

Fogler v. Flindall (In Re Flindall)

105 B.R. 32 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Sep 6, 1989

These facts are sufficient to conclude that the plans would not qualify as spendthrift trusts under Arizona law. There is no express statutory authority in Arizona for the establishment of a spendthrift trust. … These facts clearly place these plans within the holding of Kaplan .

In Re Oster

293 B.R. 242 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · May 6, 2003

No property can be exempted (and thereby immunized), however, unless it first falls within the bankruptcy estate. … The court may not give effect to the “matter of course at any time” part of the Rule and disregard the term “before the case is closed” which clearly qualifies the Rule’s application.

Tara D. Wallace

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2024

Accordingly, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and the related doctrines of sovereign immunity, and intergovernmental immunity, all serve to immunize the Federal Government from state laws that directly regulate … Further, the explicit statutory exclusion of “the courts of the United States” from the federal FOIA clearly shows that there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity in this area. U.S. v.

Ganas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Ganas)

513 B.R. 394 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Jul 11, 2014

A proof of claim that lacks the documentation required by Rule 3001(c) does not qualify for the evidentiary benefit of Rule 3001(f). … Further, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the comprehensive structure of the Bankruptcy Code established by Congress.

Gordon v. United States (In Re Sissine)

432 B.R. 870 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · May 27, 2010

Suspending a determination as to whether Trustee qualifies as an individual under § 362(h), Trustee fails to demonstrate any injury to the bankruptcy estate. … Generally, U.S. is protected by sovereign immunity and is immune from suit unless it consents to suit or there is clear congressional intent to allow suits against the United States. U.S. v.

In Re Larsen

399 B.R. 634 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 9, 2009

However, this is not a stated emergency, and I cannot discern one, so it does not qualify as exigent circumstances. Although Mr. … Incapacity is clearly not applicable as Mr. Larsen was capable of preparing his schedules, and he is knowledgeable of his financial situation.

Cournoyer v. Town of Lincoln (In Re Cournoyer)

43 B.R. 354 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 12, 1984

We begin with the premise that a reorganization debtor is not immune to the consequences of zoning enforcement which may result in loss of assets or the curtailment of the rehabilitation process. … That was clearly a supremacy question that had to be resolved in favor of federal law.

In Re Hansen

111 B.R. 647 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 7, 1990

Thusly, the aggregate of the above-referenced Plan sections clearly indicate that an active Plan participant such as the Debtor has a specific interest in the funds credited to his account. … It merely is a qualified deferred compensation program which was not intended to provide for the maintenance and support of its beneficiaries.

In re Grier

464 B.R. 839 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · Sep 15, 2011

In particular, Debtors argue that the Mof-fett case “clearly and unequivocally established that tax refunds are not known or virtually certain.” Debtor’s Consolidated Brief at page 13. … The Court disagrees with Debtors that Moffett clearly and unequivocally estab *845 lished that tax refunds could never be “known or virtually certain” even to qualify as projected disposable income. As the U.S.

In Re Arlumsa Development Corp.

33 B.R. 981 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 1983

After an extensive examination of the legislative history, Judge Friendly concluded, “The history thus clearly points to insistence by Congress on a generality of default.” In re B.D. International, 701 F.2d at 1076 . … In determining whether a claim qualifies as a basis for an involuntary, Judge Friendly stated that a claimant must establish that there are grounds for the claim and that no defenses have been asserted in substantive form

In Re Manicure

29 B.R. 248 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 15, 1983

Although Manicure apparently believed that the property was held by the entireties, counsel for the Debtor concedes that this is not clearly stated by the language of the deed. … Under Virginia law, property held by the entireties is immune from individual creditor attack. Vasilion v. Vasilion, 192 Va. 735 , 66 S.E.2d 599 (1951).