378 B.R. 417 (2007), In re Winer, Termine, v., Winer., Nos. MB 07-009, 05-13737-RS., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit., September 19, 2007., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
378 B.R. 417 (2007), In re Kristan, Kristan, v., Nesbit., Nos. EP 07-032, 04-20328-JBH., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit., September 6, 2007., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
, Based on the foregoing, we conclude the bankruptcy court had the authority under § 105(a) to stay the state court action and did so to preserve its jurisdiction over the dischargeability issues to be filed by Debtors in the adversary proceeding within the reopened bankruptcy case.
Finally, even were the bankruptcy court to have had jurisdiction to consider the Stay Relief Motion, Whispering Pines argues that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that Flash Island had successfully demonstrated cause for relief as required under § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Bankruptcy Nos., 3 F.3d 512 (1st Cir.1993); The court reserves jurisdiction concerning the priority of Sheehan's interest in the Sheehan Carve-out Funds authorized to be paid hereunder, with Sheehan's consent and without the necessity of Costa having to file a separate appeal from this order.
651 N.E.2d at 411. The appeals court concluded that Spinelli's decision to separate legal and equitable ownership of the property affords her the protection provided in the investment trust and the living trust, but renders her ineligible for the protection afforded by a declaration of homestead.
v., Rachel J. Kaplan, Appellee. On June 19, 2007, the bankruptcy court granted in part the motion to stay, staying the $427.50 payment to the Debtor's attorney and the $500 sanction. On August 13, the Appellant filed with the Panel an emergency motion for stay of the order on appeal.
, LAMOUTTE, Bankruptcy Judge. Ramirez v. Sanchez Ramos, 438 F.3d 92 (1st Cir.2006). The Local Rules for the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit clarify the requirement that the election by the appellant must be made at the time of filing the notice of appeal and in a separate writing.
Regarding another Chapter 7 case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained that even where a debtor provides adequate assurance of payment, it is well established that the utility may still terminate service upon the debtor's failure to pay for post-petition services.
See TI Fed. Therefore, the Spinelli court did not construe the homestead statute liberally in favor of the debtor, the Thurston decision did not deal with an equitable interest under a nominee trust and no case establishes whether a person other than an owner may acquire a homestead interest.
The Panel has authority to hear appeals from: (1) final judgments, orders and decrees; or (2) with leave of court, from interlocutory orders. on September 8, 2005, on Option One's behalf, Carney filed a notice with the bankruptcy court that' he had recorded the mortgage discharge, as ordered.
Therefore, if reversal were not required on other grounds, we would at least be required to vacate the confirmation order and remand to the bankruptcy court for an evidentiary hearing and entry of findings and rulings on the propriety of the release as a settlement of claims against Flash Island.
See TI Fed., [6] Mark S. Foss, Esq.Neither Rodolakis or Foss addresses the conflict issue, and in his affidavit Rodolakis only casually mentions that when Hampton was looking to purchase claims against Eresian, he did request the Koza bankruptcy case file from the Federal Archives.
, The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on filed, together with the affidavits, *881 if any, ' which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Laws Ann.
, By its order, the bankruptcy court below concluded that projected disposable income should be determined according to the income and expenses represented on Schedules I and J, rather than by the outcome of Official Form B22C which is used to calculate current monthly income. The court agreed.
See Gledhill, 76 F.3d at 1078-80 (A party may seek relief from an order lifting the automatic stay by motion under Rule 60(b), apart from seeking injunctive relief under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), because, by definition, Rule 60(b) relief is a request for reinstatement of the original automatic stay.
