, *947 *948 Richard E. Poulos, Portland, Me. The fact that two different bankruptcy judges were involved does not make the latter's decision appellate in nature. Moreover, the judge did not disturb Judge Cyr's finding of cause for the removal of the Kontoratoses, from which there was no appeal.
, for plaintiff, appellee., PER CURIAM:, Appellant argues that 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)[1] should not be applied retroactively to allow the debtor/appellee to avoid a judicial lien, which impairs her exemption, placed on the debtor's property prior to the enactment of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978.
After hearing, the Bankruptcy Court found that Appellant is a custodian as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(b), and ordered him, inter alia, to deliver to the Trustee any property, or proceeds of property, in his possession, custody and control as of January 22, 1982.
, In sum, the Bankruptcy Court correctly allowed the NMFS to recover interest after *345 the date of filing and to the date of the loss of the insured property, but erred in allowing the NMFS to recover from the insurance proceeds interest after the date of loss and to the date of payment.
, INC., Debtor. The schedules filed with Coastal's petition reveal that the company's sole asset is its franchise rights to operate a cable television system in a geographical area encompassing several towns in southern Rhode Island (area 7). Appellants objected to the proposed sale.
Turning to the customary fee in the community (factor 5), the bankruptcy court emphasized the well-established principle that estates cannot be charged expert rates for routine tasks and cited several non-bankruptcy cases[11] where the maximum allowed hourly rate was $75.00 per hour.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, LAWLESS, Chief Judge:, The Appellate Panel has before it a motion filed by the appellant, Nike, Inc. (Nike), seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory order issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine., [6] See Bankruptcy Rule 903;
, VOTOLATO, Chief Judge. Since the aggregate of the two mortgages plus the Debtors' $15, 000 exemption exceeded the value of the real estate, the bankruptcy judge held that the Debtors could avoid Merchants' judicial lien. 791 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1981) (using payoff figure as of hearing date).
, for appellant. On November 1, 1979, Edward transferred his 100 shares, which was all of Roco's outstanding capital stock, to the corporation in exchange for a $300, 000 note secured by a security interest in all of Roco's personal property, including inventory, accounts receivable and equipment.
612 (1982), In re ADVENT CORPORATION, Debtor., Customs argues that the $241, 600 bond should not be rescinded because Customs relied on the existence of a bond in that amount in releasing the $220, 000 shipment to Advent, while F D failed to obtain a stay of the order pending this appeal.
440 (1982), In re SEARLES CASTLE ENTERPRISES, INC., Debtor-Appellee., The Appellant essentially alleges that the Order of June 29, 1981 was clearly erroneous for the following reasons: (1) the $200, 000.00 surety bond required by the Bankruptcy Judge was excessive in the context of this sale;
, The creditors' committee appealed an order of the Bankruptcy Court amending its *122 Order Confirming Sale, which granted in part and denied in part the Appellant's earlier Motion for Reconsideration. Panel 1st Cir. It wants the rights of the parties in fund disposition defined before the sale.
, Plastic Distributing Corporation (PDC), a creditor in this Chapter 11 case, has appealed the bankruptcy judge's order granting the Debtor's motion for summary judgment, wherein he held that 11 U.S.C. § 546(c) controls a seller's right to reclaim goods from the debtor in cash transactions.
The court would not hear the motion because the case was closed, and instructed the appellant to file a motion to reopen the closed bankruptcy case; 40, 87 L. Ed. 493 (1943); Notice of Time Fixed. Reaffirmation agreements should be approved prior to the granting of the discharge.
v., Roland CARON, Auburn Medical Assoc., Bankruptcy No. 81-9011., The bankruptcy court's conclusion that Bonardi held a valid claim against Associates for cleaning services and a 10% partnership interest in the partnership assets of Realty cannot negate the fact Caron is a necessary party.
The bankruptcy judge is far better situated than we are to determine at what point the Debtor's petition should have been dismissed because of her continuing inability or unwillingness to file a plan and for her failure to comply with Rule 13-201 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
, This is an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Massachusetts dismissing debtor's chapter 13 petition on the ground that her noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts exceed the limit set for a chapter 13 debtor under section 109(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.
, GOODMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.[3] As one of its findings of fact, the bankruptcy court determined that no identification occurred until the pans were removed from the general inventory, repackaged and shipped to the specific customers *199 designated from time to time by Lever Bros.
, Appeal of Joseph S. CHICCO., Before VOTOLATO, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and GOODMAN, Bankruptcy Judges., We construe the debtor's motion, filed in bankruptcy court, to revoke the December 15 order of dismissal as a motion for relief from judgment permitted pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 924.
Woodbury Company, and Chinook Realty Trust pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303., Judgment affirmed., [4] On appeal, no party disputes that if the post-petition transfers were transfers of property of the estate, then the trial court correctly concluded that said transfers were voidable under section 549.
