), On appeal, the Bank claims the transfer was made by Safetymaster, not Straight, because Safetymaster had garnished Lobo and Carr. Whether the Bank's interest in this property is perfected by an unavoidable lien was not raised before the Bankruptcy Court and has not been raised on appeal.
In a subsequent Order Granting Relief From Stay, [2] the Bankruptcy *982 Court granted Bell relief from the stay for purposes of obtaining payment on such portion of the award of support and maintenance as matured after the filing of the bankruptcy petition from non-estate property only.
Rivermeadows filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal. A bankruptcy court generally loses jurisdiction over issues appealed to the district court or the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and may not enter an order dismissing an appeal even where the appellant has wholly failed to pursue the appeal.
, The Edelman case is the only published Wyoming authority that has interpreted this provision, and it has since been relied on by the District Court of Wyoming, in the unpublished Marchando case, to hold that a debtor may not claim multiple exemptions from multiple occupations.
NATURE OF CASE, In this Chapter 13 case, Georg Jensen appeals from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming barring him from collecting attorney's fees he alleges are due from the debtor.
In its Order, the Bankruptcy Court required the Appellant, attorney for the debtor, to disgorge all previously paid compensation and denied further compensation from the debtor's bankruptcy estate. For the same reason, courts have imposed a fiduciary duty upon counsel for the debtor in possession.
During the jury trial, the Debtor admitted that after the date of the sale of Edmond Marble, he kept the date-of-sale accounts receivable in accounts held jointly with Pamela Seay in order to earn interest on the money. Holaday did not Establish the Existence of a Trust Res. Judgment, p. 6.
In order for documents not yet part of the court record to be considered by a court in support of or in opposition to a summary judgment motion they must meet a two-prong test: (1) the document must be attached to and authenticated by an affidavit which conforms to Rule 56(e);
Daleske v. Fairfield Communities, Inc., 17 F.3d 321, 324 (10th Cir.1994) (section 1447(c), which requires remand if a district court lacks jurisdiction over a removed case, applies to bankruptcy cases). On August 2, 1996, the Bankruptcy Court entered its order denying the Remand Motion.
, Johnson appealed the June 12, 1996, sanction order to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and also filed a motion for stay of the sanctions pending appeal with the trial court. 2447, 2460, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990); 978 F.2d at 1200-01.
OPINION, CORNISH, Bankruptcy Judge., This Panel is asked to review the Bankruptcy Court's determination that the judgment of Zeigler Engineering Sales, Inc. (Zeigler) against Donald L. Cozad (debtor) is avoided in its entirety under 11 U.S.C. ยง 522(f). 1061, 127 L. Ed. 2d 381 (1994)).
2541, 2546, 101 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1988). Utah Code Ann.CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, What this case ultimately comes down to is whether or not the outcome is controlled by Nicholas assuming, arguendo, that the decision does grant priority for the interest claims of the governmental units.
It does not attack the bankruptcy court's findings that the TEWCA-Kelley contract did not require Kelley to establish a trust account for the premiums or to segregate them from any other money he might receive. (2) that the statute must spell out the fiduciary duty;, Okla. Stat. Ann.
However, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the plan without a provision for payment of these fees, and the issue is whether this Court should reverse the Order Denying Motion and hold that the debtor owes the UST post-confirmation fees regardless of the plan's omission. 8 Collier on Bankruptcy
Therefore, this *248 Court must review the Bankruptcy Court's conclusions of law. In the present case, a notice of no dividend pursuant to Rule 2002(e) was not given and therefore the deadline to file proofs of claim expired before Unruh had any notice or knowledge of Dawson's bankruptcy.
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit.ORDER OF DISMISSAL, PER CURIAM. 987, 993, 103 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1989); 1996) (doctrine did not apply where pro se appellant was given incorrect advice by district court clerk's office regarding the time to file a notice of appeal);
, Marvin J. Dahl, Christine Dahl, and Mel Dahl appeal the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas dismissing their involuntary petition brought against Ross Key. must answer the involuntary petition in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1011(b).
Power Coop., The reason for, and the requirements of, the Rule have been articulated by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Featherstone v. Barash, 345 F.2d 246, 249 (10th Cir.1965)., The findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy court fail to meet the requirements of Fed.
298, 139 L. Ed. 2d 230 (1997); see also Kansas State Bank Trust Co. v. Vickers (In re Vickers), 577 F.2d 683, 687 (10th Cir.1978) (`fiduciary capacity' as used in Section 17(a)(4) [the predecessor to section 523(a)(4)] refers to money or property entrusted by one to another. Quaif, 4 F.3d at 955;
1254, 131 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1995); The Tenth Circuit has held, in the context of a bankruptcy case, that Rule 54(b) may only be used to permit appeals from orders that finally resolve at least the discrete claim for which review is sought. See Johnson v. Laing (In re Laing), 945 F.2d 354 (10th Cir.
