Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge lessen

Moore v. Hermes (In re Hermes)

Ruling
Debtors'rent obligation was deemed dischargeable since the landlord had no evidence of fraud, defalcation, larceny, or embezzlement.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff landlord filed an adversary proceeding against defendant debtors to have a rent obligation that the debtors owed to the landlord declared as a nondischargeable debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The debtor farmed land that was owned by the landlord and had written a dishonored check for the rent payment.

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

opinion summary, case decided on March 29, 2006 , LexisNexis #0406-122

Pierce v. Carlson (In re Carlson)

Ruling
Debt was deemed dischargeable since the creditor did not show that a fiduciary relationship was owed to it by the debtor and that the debtor submitted false statements.
Procedural posture

Plaintiffs, creditors, filed an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor seeking a determination that the debt owed to them was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523. The debtor moved for summary judgment.

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

opinion summary, case decided on December 08, 2005 , LexisNexis #0306-051

In re Smith

Ruling
Lessor was denied relief from automatic stay violation sanctions since confirmed lease was in place and notice of the bankruptcy was not required.
Procedural posture

A lessor was sanctioned under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) for violating the automatic bankruptcy stay by unilaterally terminating the farm lease of bankruptcy debtors, but the lessor asserted that the lessor did not know of the bankruptcy and that the debtors'tenancy was terminated prior to the bankruptcy. The lessor moved for relief from the judgment of sanctions.

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

opinion summary, case decided on December 04, 2005 , LexisNexis #0106-039

Richardson v. Schoemperlen (In re Schoemperlen)

Ruling
Debtor's discharge was revoked since the debtor failed to comply with instructions to turn over any inheritance obtained within six months of discharge and only complied on the eve of trial.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff bankruptcy trustee brought an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor seeking to revoke the debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(2) for the debtor's failure to turn over an inheritance that the debtor received after filing the debtor's bankruptcy petition. The debtor turned over the required amount immediately prior to trial.

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

opinion summary, case decided on October 18, 2005 , LexisNexis #0106-065

Richardson v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re Casias)

Ruling
Wages paid to judgment creditor within preference period pursuant to judgment order entered prior to preference period were avoidable transfers since the debtor obtained the interest in the wages after performing work.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff chapter 7 trustee filed an adversary proceeding against defendant creditor seeking to avoid certain payments as preferences. The issue was whether the trustee could avoid as a preference wages paid to a judgment creditor within 90 days of the debtor's bankruptcy where a state court wage deduction order was entered more than 90 days before the bankruptcy was filed.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Richardson v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re Casias) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on September 13, 2005 , LexisNexis #0206-017