Search Opinion

Distad v. United States (In re Distad)

Plaintiff debtor, appearing pro se, brought claims against defendant United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleging that its efforts to collect his 1992 income tax liability, which was discharged in bankruptcy, constituted a violation of his bankruptcy discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C.S. § 524(a). The court considered what remedies were available to the taxpayer.
Ruling: 
Post-Young efforts by IRS to collect taxes owed outside of revised look-back period violated stay.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Distad v. United States (In re Distad). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on August 08,2008, LexisNexis #0808-135

Markus v. Fried (In re Geneva Steel LLC)

Plaintiffs, a chapter 11 trustee and others, filed an adversary proceeding against defendants, a Delaware corporation and others, seeking an order avoiding the transfer of real property to the Delaware corporation. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the two-year statute of limitations imposed by 11 U.S.C.S. § 546(a) had expired.
Ruling: 
Two-year statute of limitations for avoidance of transfer was tolled due to debtor's nondisclosure.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Markus v. Fried (In re Geneva Steel LLC). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Commercial case opionion summary, case decided on May 14,2008, LexisNexis #0608-064

In re Eneco Inc.

In a chapter 11 debtor's bankruptcy case, movant requested that the court abstain under 11 U.S.C.S. § 305, convert or dismiss the case under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1112, appoint a trustee under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1104, or grant relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d).
Ruling: 
Chapter 11 trustee appointed due to debtor's failure to respond to request for production and due to alleged preference transaction.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Eneco Inc.. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Commercial case opionion summary, case decided on March 21,2008, LexisNexis #0508-049

In re Austin

The debtors in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case objected to the proof of claim filed by a creditor on the ground that it included the amount of negative equity financed during their purchase and financing of a van through the creditor.
Ruling: 
"910" vehicle loan protected from bifurcation as inclusion of negative equity did not defeat purchase money status.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Austin. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on February 12,2008, LexisNexis #0308-094

DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC v. Quick (In re Quick)

Chapter 13 debtors proposed a plan whereby they would each surrender a vehicle purchased with purchase-money financing by a secured creditor within 910 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition. The bankruptcy court ruled that the surrender operated as full satisfaction of the secured creditor's claim, thereby precluding the filing of an unsecured claim for a deficiency, pursuant to the "hanging paragraph"of 11 U.S.C. § 1325.
Ruling: 
Bankruptcy court properly held that surrender of vehicle subject to hanging paragraph barred claim for deficiency.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC v. Quick (In re Quick). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Stokes v. Jeppesen (In re Jeppesen)

Plaintiff purchasers of promissory notes from defendant bankruptcy debtor brought an adversary proceeding against the debtor, seeking a determination a debt to the plaintiffs arising from the notes was not dischargeable based on willful and malicious injury, false pretenses, and a judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (6) and (19). The bankruptcy court conducted a trial.
Ruling: 
Creditors knowing participation in Ponzi scheme precluded nondischargeability for willful, malicious injury but related securities law judgment was nondischargeable.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Stokes v. Jeppesen (In re Jeppesen). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Commercial case opionion summary, case decided on June 27,2007, LexisNexis #1107-100

In re Blakeley

Creditor filed a motion to authorize a reaffirmation agreement with pro se chapter 7 debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(A).
Ruling: 
Bankruptcy court declined to authorize reaffirmation agreement regarding loan secured by debtor's vehicle as not in debtor's best interests.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Blakeley. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Markus v. Fried (In re Geneva Steel LLC)

Plaintiff bankruptcy trustee brought an adversary proceeding against, among others, defendant directors of corporate bankruptcy debtors, alleging that the directors breached fiduciary duties, and the directors counterclaimed for indemnification and compensation for services. The directors moved for a determination that the trustee's claims against the directors were non-core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157.
Ruling: 
Trustee's claim against directors for breaches of fiduciary duties were deemed to be core proceedings since the directors had filed proofs of claim against the estate.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Markus v. Fried (In re Geneva Steel LLC). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Bennett & Fairshter LLP v. Stinky Love Inc. (In re Lacy)

Appellant law firm challenged an order and judgment from the bankruptcy court, which granted a motion by appellee creditor to implement the debtor's confirmed plan of reorganization, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1142, and disallowed the law firm's claim for attorneys'fees for postpetition, preconfirmation employment by the debtor.
Ruling: 
Order disallowing attorneys' fees was affirmed since the law firm's postpetition, preconfirmation employment had not been authorized.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Bennett & Fairshter LLP v. Stinky Love Inc. (In re Lacy). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member