Skip to main content

§ 521(l)

In re Wilson

Feb
24
2011
Ruling
Debtor could not belatedly claim state exemption not set forth in original Schedule C.
Procedural posture

Before the court was the trustee's motion to compel turnover and the trustee's objection to debtor's Amended Schedule C.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Wilson Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 24, 2011 , LexisNexis #0311-080
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Clarke v UPS Inc.

Jan
15
2010
Ruling
Employment discrimination case dismissed as not disclosed by debtor employee in bankruptcy.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff employee filed a bankruptcy petition. Almost four years later, the employee sued defendant employer and alleged violation of 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq. The employee did not amend her bankruptcy schedules. The employer moved to dismiss the complaint based upon judicial estoppel. A magistrate recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted. The employee objected.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Clarke v UPS Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on January 15, 2010 , LexisNexis #0210-069
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Marshall

Dec
14
2007
Ruling
Bankruptcy properly dismissed due to debtor's failure to timely file documents.
Procedural posture

Appellant chapter 7 debtor filed a pro se appeal after the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed his chapter 7 bankruptcy petition under 11 U.S.C. § 521(I) and thereafter denied his motion to reinstate the petition, after the debtor failed to appear at a scheduled hearing on the motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Marshall Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on December 14, 2007 , LexisNexis #0108-042
LexisNexis Article
Learn More
Subscribe to %1