302 B.R. 112 (2003), In re Picard., Medved Chevrolet South, Inc., v., Royal., WY-03-016, 02-10280., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., July 14, 2003., Affirmed.
302 B.R. 112 (2003), In re Medical Management Group, Inc., In re Oklahoma. ex rel. Oklahoma State Dept. of Health v., Medical Management Group, Inc., WO-03-004, 01-14494-WV., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., June 27, 2003., Reversed.
294 B.R. 198 (2003), In re Watson, Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc., v., Watson., No. WO-02-090, 01-16224-BH, 01-1298-BH., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., May 29, 2003., Affirmed.
294 B.R. 198 (2003), In re Robinson, Phillips, v., Attorneys Title Guaranty Fund, Inc., No. UT-02-043, 02T-21711., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., March 21, 2003., Appeal Dismissed.
294 B.R. 198 (2003), In re Crestview Funeral Home, Inc., Salazar, v., McCormick., No. NM-02-070, 7-95-11923, MA, 00-1091 M., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., June 16, 2003., Affirmed.
294 B.R. 198 (2003), In re Sims, Lea County State Bank, v., Eunice Public Schools., No. NM-02-069, 7-99-14093, MR, 99-1199 M., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., January 16, 2003., Affirmed.
294 B.R. 198 (2003), In re Farwell, Farwell, v., Household Finance Corp. III., No. KS-02-086, 01-43347-13., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., June 10, 2003., Affirmed.
294 B.R. 198 (2003), In re Kopexa Realty Venture Co. Kopp, v., Clark., No. KS-02-042, 95-21261-7., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., May 21, 2003., Appeal Dismissed.
302 B.R. 112 (2003), In re Moore., Moore v., District Attorney of Love County, Okl., No. EO-02-078, 02-71630., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., March 20, 2003., Appeal Dismissed.
Then the court ruled: Lump sum contribution will be allowed., The other issue Christensen raised in his initial brief in his appeal of the Plan Confirmation Order is whether the bankruptcy court improperly confirmed a plan that did not call for him to retain the lien securing his claim.
, Robert and Mitzi Miller (Debtors) appeal from the bankruptcy court's order, which reduced the amount of attorney fees requested and directed that payment of the approved fees be made through the plan., On June 1, 2000, Behles filed her First Fee Application seeking an hourly rate of $225.
In its ruling, the bankruptcy court reached the merits of Ms. Duncan's claim, and held that: (1) a non-debtor has no right to claim an exemption from property of the bankruptcy estate; and (2) under Wyoming law, some sort of ownership interest is required in order to claim a homestead exemption.
OPINION, CLARK, Bankruptcy Judge.[19] If the POC was prima facie evidence of Wilson's claim, the bankruptcy court was required to apply the following well-established burdens of proof:, The objecting party has the burden of going forward with evidence supporting the objection.
v., Key Bank USA, N.A., Kim Wilson, Snow Christensen Martineau, United States Trustee, Office of the United States Trustee, Salt Lake City, UT, for Appellees. The Motion is GRANTED. R. Bankr.P. A certified copy of this Order, sent to the Bankruptcy Court, shall constitute the mandate on appeal.
Price Waterhouse Coopers;, Section 554 provides: On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court may order the trustee to abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate.) (citing cases).
, Busch argues that the bankruptcy court should have decided the nature and extent of the Appellee's lien because the equity interest is exempt from any debt existing at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy case under § 522(c) and the lien is avoidable under § 522(f). Sanders, 39 F.3d at 260.
Robert Cummings; the debtor's motive in filing the motion;, The Trustee argues that the procedural requirements of Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure 1017 (Rule 1017), and 9013 (Rule 9013) indicate that Congress intended that bankruptcy courts exercise their discretion during the conversion process.
, Donald E. Armstrong (Armstrong) appeals an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah that temporarily allowed a claim by Appellee Steven R. Bailey, Chapter 7 Trustee for Willow Brook Cottages, LLC (Bailey), which permitted Bailey to vote on Armstrong's Chapter 11 Plan.
The Court's mandate will issue immediately.OPINION, Donald E. Armstrong (Armstrong) appeals an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah that temporarily allowed a claim by Appellee Steppes Apartments Ltd., for voting purposes in Armstrong's Chapter 11 Plan.
evidence., In Walker v. Cadle Co. (In re Walker), 51 F.3d 562 (5th Cir.1995), the court concluded that section 1367 supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to a cross-claim by a creditor against an unrelated third party for contribution and indemnity in a case before the bankruptcy judge.
