Ohio

Vaughan v. Meridan Natl Corp. (In re Ottawa River Steel Co.)

Plaintiff chapter 7 trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against defendants, creditors, seeking to recover certain prepetition transfers made by the debtor. The creditors moved for summary judgment, alleging that the trustee's claims were time barred under 11 U.S.C. § 546.
Ruling: 
Creditor was denied summary judgment where the court ruled it could decide the date an order for relief triggered two-year limitations period for filing creditor's complaint.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Vaughan v. Meridan Natl Corp. (In re Ottawa River Steel Co.). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Cote v. Catherman (In re Catherman)

Plaintiff creditor filed a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt owed by defendant debtor. The creditor brought this suit pursuant to the statutory exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
Ruling: 
Creditor failed to establish that debtor intentionally misrepresented the purpose of a loan and thus loan debt was deemed dischargeable.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Cote v. Catherman (In re Catherman). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Messenger v. Messenger (In re Messenger)

Plaintiff ex-wife brought a complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) to determine the dischargeability of a marital debt assumed by defendant debtor.
Ruling: 
Debtor's assumption of marital credit card debt was deemed nondischargeable.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Messenger v. Messenger (In re Messenger). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Freeman

The debtors filed a petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Code. The debtors filed a motion for an order directing the turnover of monies held by a creditor. The creditor filed an objection to the motion. The court treated the matter as an action for a violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, pursuant to the court's authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), together with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015 and 9014.
Ruling: 
Creditor did not violate automatic stay when the debtors made postpetition payments on a collateralized debt that was to be reaffirmed but had not yet been reaffirmed.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Freeman. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Pages

Subscribe to Ohio