330 B.R. 880 (2005), In re Johnson;, Johnson, v., Smith., No. WY-04-087, No. 04-20861., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., September 7, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Vacated.
336 B.R. 600 (2005), IN RE DAVIS, No. WO-05-082, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit, December 7, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Petition Denied.
323 B.R. 802 (2005), In re; Printer Printer, v., COFCO Credit Co., L.L.C., WO-04-080, 99-16898-BH, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit., March 21, 2005., Decision without published opinion reserved.
329 B.R. 358 (2005), In re Whiting., Whiting, v., Questar Gas Co., UT-05-019, 03T-27493., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., August 3, 2005., Decisions Without Published Opinion., Affirmed.
336 B.R. 600 (2005), IN RE DALTON;, MALLOY, v., BANK OF COMMERCE, No. NO-05-052, 04-10025-R, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit, December 8, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
330 B.R. 880 (2005), In re Bartmann;, Bartmann, v., Malloy., No. NO-04-095, No. 03-04975-R., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., May 25, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
330 B.R. 880 (2005), In re Derringer;, Derringer, v., Chapel., No. NM-05-020, No. 13-04-17330-MA., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., September 6, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
337 B.R. 728 (2005), IN RE MYERS., MYERS, v., FIRST NAT. BANK OF CENTRALIA., No. KS-05-038, 04-41322-11., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., October 13, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
336 B.R. 601 (2005), IN RE MYERS;, MYERS, v., FIRST NAT. BANK OF CENTRALIA, No. KS-05-038, 04-41322-11, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit, November 16, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
330 B.R. 880 (2005), In re Majors;, Rajala, v., Majors., No. KS-04-093, No. KS-04-097, No. 02-24172-7., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., August 29, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
336 B.R. 600 (2005), IN RE KENNEDY;, KENNEDY, v., MARTINEZ, No. CO-05-033, 05-10064-ABC, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit, October 19, 2005., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
It would be the debtor , This Court is also persuaded by the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc.[26] In Whiting Pools, the Court interpreted § 542(a) in the context of Chapter 11 where a creditor seized property before bankruptcy was filed.
[33], The Order of the Bankruptcy Court is hereby REVERSED, and the Bankruptcy Court is directed to enter judgment allowing redemption in favor of the Debtors and against Wells Fargo in the agreed-upon amount of $8, 215.00. 452, 136 L. Ed. 2d 454 (1996).An individual debtor may .
Debtors appealed.[19], In relying upon the clear and express language in the statutory avoiding powers and limiting their enforcement to trustees, many courts have followed the Supreme Court's analysis in Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A. 527, 116 L. Ed. 2d 514.
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit. In the Summary Judgment Order, the bankruptcy court found that the entire amount of the debt owed by Barber to the Appellees and Hool including unliquidated punitive and compensatory damages was nondischargeable.
The bankruptcy court found that, contrary to the allegations in CFB's complaint, Ms. Bezdek had prepared the Borrowers Affidavit, and that at most, the debtors signed the Affidavit by mistake., The bankruptcy court entered an Order granting the Fee Application (Fee Order)., This appeal followed.
In addition, the court found that even if it did consider Earl's affidavit, it did not amount to even a scintilla of evidence in support of his claim, and that summary judgment would still be proper., This appeal followed the bankruptcy court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Regina.
, First National Bank (FNB) appeals a bankruptcy court judgment that a debt owed to FNB by Roy Cribbs (Debtor), the chapter 7 debtor, was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). Seeking a loan for PALI, Cox submitted the packet and the April 1999 Statement to various lenders, including FNB.
The Creditors allow borrowers to defer loan payments for twelve-month periods up to five years, and based on that policy, they placed the debtor's student loan debt in forbearance status. whether based on an actual job search, Azwar could not obtain higher paid work in Oklahoma City or elsewhere;
Class 7 rejected the Plan. FSOC grounds this argument on its contention that the $70, 000.00[7] paid to FSA from a third party was in reality payment on an unsecured portion of FSA's claim and was drawn from funds that should have been recognized as property of the estate.
