Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge clarkson

In re Suttice

Jan
09
2013
Ruling
Trustee's motion to dismiss elderly debtors' case for failure to include Social Security income denied.
Procedural posture

Debtors, a husband and wife, filed a petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the U.S. Trustee for the Central District of California ("UST") filed a motion to dismiss the debtors' case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 707(b)(1) and (b)(3), for abuse. The court held a hearing on the UST's motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Suttice 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 09, 2013 , LexisNexis #0213-056
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Suttice

Dec
19
2012
Ruling
Motion to dismiss based on ability to pay under chapter 13 denied as conversion would provide no benefit to unsecured creditors.
Procedural posture

Before the court was a motion to dismiss debtors' chapter 7 case for abuse pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 707(b)(1) and § 707(b)(3) filed by movant, the U.S. Trustee for the Central District of California. During the hearing, the U.S. Trustee argued for dismissal based on one factor, the ability to pay under a chapter 13 plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Suttice 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 19, 2012 , LexisNexis #0113-092
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Friedman v. PP LLC (In re Friedman)

Mar
19
2012
Ruling
Denial of confirmation and conversion to chapter 7 reversed as bankruptcy court improperly applied the absolute priority rule in an individual chapter 11 case.
Procedural posture

Appellant chapter 11 debtors challenged a decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, which denied confirmation of their second amended plan and converted their case to chapter 7.

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

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on March 19, 2012 , LexisNexis #0512-031
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

AmeriCredit Fin. Servs. v. Cruz (In re Cruz)

Jun
28
2011
Ruling
Auto loan debt was dischargeable as to debtor spouse absent evidence of misrepresentation.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff creditor brought an adversary proceeding against defendant, chapter 7 debtor wife, seeking a determination that her debt for the purchase of a motor vehicle was nondischargeable of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and 523(a)(6). The creditor alleged that the wife made financial and other misrepresentations in connection with the purchase, and moved for a default judgment.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 28, 2011 , LexisNexis #0711-118
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

SureTec v. Munson (In re Munson)

Mar
10
2011
Ruling
Nondischargeability proceeding based on breach of fiduciary duty dismissed as not grounded in language of parties' written agreement.
Procedural posture

Chapter 7 debtors whose commercial plumbing company had obtained bonds from plaintiff insurer in connection with certain public works projects, moved to dismiss a nondischargeability complaint brought by plaintiff under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(2)(A) for fraud and § 523(a)(4) for breach of fiduciary duty. At issue was whether the complaint adequately stated claims under § 523 and had complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of SureTec v. Munson (In re Munson) 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 10, 2011 , LexisNexis #0411-013
LexisNexis Article
Learn More
Subscribe to %1