285 B.R. 344 (2002), In re Kittel Kittel, v., First Union Nat. Bank., WO-01-094, WO-01-095, 01-16780., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., May 8, 2002., Affirmed.
285 B.R. 344 (2002), In re Lowther Lowther, v., Lowther., WO-01-081, 00-10566., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., February 8, 2002., Affirmed.
292 B.R. 711 (2002), In re Potter., Armstrong, v., Potter., UT-01-027, 00-21039, 00-2089., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., October 8, 2002., Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.
The third policy is held in Tina Vigil's name *237 and lists Michael Vigil as beneficiary. Stat. Ann., The bankruptcy court found the language of § 26-15-129 unambiguous and held that it precluded the Debtors from claiming an exemption in the cash surrender values of the life insurance policies.
As the bankruptcy court in this case concluded in its first Order Authorizing Distribution of Fees and Expenses dated February 16, 2001, the Trustee could commence distribution when he or she files his [or her] notice, giving notice of the filing of the final report and intended distribution.
), The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court properly determined that Sheila Lampe was not entitled to the exemption because she produced no evidence indicating that she obtained any of the farm equipment with her separate property or by either gift or inheritance. Kansas law is in accord.
Discussion, The issue is whether a non-debtor spouse who had no tax withholdings for the year in question, who is a homemaker, and who filed joint tax returns with a debtor is entitled to receive half of the tax refund. Mrs. Kleinfeldt had no income and therefore had no tax withholdings.
The addition of the term life insurance was made on the Note in handwriting. We REMAND to the bankruptcy court for findings on the issue of whether WyHy violated the Debtors's discharge by debiting sums from the Debtors' account other than the payment authorized by the Reaffirmation Agreement.
Wambeke, 372 P.2d at 474;, [4] As the bankruptcy court correctly stated: the transfer avoided by the trustee did not include the rights of ownership and possession to which the homestead exemption attaches, interest in property [the Debtor] enjoyed on the date he filed the bankruptcy petition.
The Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan provided:, C. For purposes of determining disposable income, tax refunds to which the debtor(s) is entitled during the first 36 months of the plan are deemed disposable income unless otherwise ordered by the court and will be submitted to the chapter 13 trustee.
See Objection to Claim , Jeffrey relies on two arguments in support of his contention that the bankruptcy court erred in awarding Luanne a priority claim of $13, 200 as a result of his failure to make the payments on the marital home. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
, Under the Pioneer Dodge and Haggis Management cases, we believe the bankruptcy court could have found Community's sale of the Personal Property to be commercially unreasonable based solely on its inadequate marketing. Pioneer Dodge Center, Inc. v. Glaubensklee, 649 P.2d 28 (Utah 1982);
v., Wesley Allen Myers, Sonja Diane Myers, and Ronald E. Holmes, Trustee, Appellees. Stipulated Order , Because the debtors had been discharged of personal liability for their debt to the appellant before commencement of this case, there is no claim of such creditor against the debtor.
, On March 8, 2002, sixteen days after entry of the Fee Motion Order, but only four days after entry of the Fee Judgment, Dimeff filed a Motion for the Court to Reconsider Award of Attorney Fees (Reconsideration Motion), and a Notice of Appeal, stating that she was appealing the Fee Judgment.
, The Proration Rule, Under the proration rule, lessors are entitled to lease payments under § 365(d)(3) arising during and attributable to the period after the order for relief, or as in this case, after the Conversion Date., Handy Andy, 144 F.3d at 1127-1128 (citations omitted).
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit. When the Debtors failed to do so, the Trustee filed a motion in the bankruptcy court asserting that (1) he requested the Debtors to provide him with copies of their Returns, but they refused to do so; See Stinson, 269 B.R.
, In this case, GMX sought an order from the bankruptcy court reopening the jointly administered cases to permit it to file an adversary complaint initiating an action to enjoin Miller and the other individual plaintiffs from proceeding with the suit pending before the federal court in Texas.
Here the Debtor asks this Court to independently review the trial transcript in order to determine the validity of the fraud judgment on the grounds that his rights were violated because the state court judgment and the state attorney general were corrupt. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1980).
$250, 000 for loss of consortium for Laura Cobb; 1327, 84 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1985) (holding that in cases exclusively within federal jurisdiction, state law determines the preclusive effect of a prior state court judgment unless an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Statute applies).
1712, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1996)., The bankruptcy court found that the funds in the Hallmark Plans were not property of the estate because at the time the Debtor filed his Chapter 7 petition, the funds remained in an ERISA-qualified plan and under § 541(c)(2) were excluded from the estate. Stat. Ann.
