Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge catliota

In re Kersner

Ruling
Debtors and counsel sanctioned for filing under chapter 13 when debtors exceeded debt limit.
Procedural posture

Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b), movant creditors sought sanctions against the debtors and their counsel on the grounds that there was no reasonable argument or evidentiary support to establish their 11 U.S.C.S. § 109(e) eligibility at the time a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition was filed. The creditors also alleged that the debtors violated Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 by filing a motion to reconsider. The court held a hearing on the motions.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on March 16, 2009 , LexisNexis #0509-002

Rimal v. Gunawan Kuntho Wibisono (In re Gunawan Kuntho Wibisono)

Ruling
Debtor's debt to investor was nondischargeable due to false representation.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding against defendant chapter 7 debtors, a husband and wife, seeking a judgment that the debtors owed the creditor a debt that was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B). The case was tried to the court.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Rimal v. Gunawan Kuntho Wibisono (In re Gunawan Kuntho Wibisono) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on March 16, 2009 , LexisNexis #0509-013

Smith v. Oak Grove Util. Co. LLC (In re Smith)

Ruling
Debtor sanctioned for failure to respond to interrogatories related to claim it had alleged was false.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff chapter 13 debtor sued defendant creditor, alleging that the acceleration of the debtor's postpetition obligations for the remaining term of a declaration for deferred water and sewer charges was a gross violation of the 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a) automatic stay, and that the creditor's proof of claim was false, fraudulent, and not a valid debt. The creditor moved to compel discovery and for discovery sanctions.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Smith v. Oak Grove Util. Co. LLC (In re Smith) 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 16, 2009 , LexisNexis #0309-029

In re Mortgage Banking Trust

Ruling
Personal trust was not an eligible debtor.
Procedural posture

Movant sought to dismiss, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1112, the chapter 11 filing by debtor, an alleged business trust, on the grounds that the debtor was not eligible to seek bankruptcy relief under 11 U.S.C.S. § 109(d).

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

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on July 23, 2008 , LexisNexis #0908-107

Nesse v. United States (In re USProtect Corp.)

Ruling
Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over trustee's claim that United States forfeiture action against debtor's bank account was subject to stay.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff bankruptcy trustee brought an adversary proceeding against defendant United States seeking a declaration that the government's forfeiture action against a bank account of a bankruptcy debtor was subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay. The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Nesse v. United States (In re USProtect Corp.) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on July 10, 2008 , LexisNexis #0908-127

In re Final Analysis Inc.

Ruling
Assignment of claim in involuntary case allowed over creditors' objections.
Procedural posture

Creditors of a corporate debtor filed an involuntary petition against the debtor under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and a trustee was appointed to represent the bankruptcy estate. A creditor who was employed by the debtor transferred his claim to an assignee, and other creditors filed an objection to the transfer.

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

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on May 16, 2008 , LexisNexis #0708-035

In re Chim

Ruling
Court declined to approve reaffirmation agreement due to presumption of undue hardship.
Procedural posture

Chapter 7 debtor filed a motion to approve a reaffirmation agreement with a lender pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 524(c).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Chim 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 25, 2008 , LexisNexis #0208-117

In re Byrd

Ruling
Discharge denied due to debtors'ongoing violations of production orders.
Procedural posture

Petitioner chapter 7 trustee filed a motion to hold respondent debtors in contempt and for an award of monetary sanctions based on their violations of a production order and 11 U.S.C. § 521.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on September 27, 2007 , LexisNexis #1107-045

King v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re King)

Ruling
Foreclosure sale in debtor's third case in one year period violated co-debtor stay.
Procedural posture

Movant debtor filed a motion to avoid a respondent creditor's postpetition foreclosure sale of the debtor's residence as violating the codebtor stay of 11 U.S.C. § 1301.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of King v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re King) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 20, 2007 , LexisNexis #0507-082