336 B.R. 601 (2006), IN RE LGX, LLC;, CARGILL, INC., v., NELSON, No. WO-05-008, WO-05-009, 02-21140-WV, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit, January 13, 2006., Decision without published opinion. Remanded.
350 B.R. 628 (2006), In re Tri-Valley Distributing, Inc., Strong, v., Western United Life Assur. Co., Nos. UT-05-119, UT-06-048, 01-36562, 01-36563, 01-36564., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., September 8, 2006., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
463 B.R. 142 (2006), IN RE BALDWIN;, MILLER, v., BILL AND CAROLYN LTD. PARTNERSHIP., Nos. EO-05-114, 04-72919., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit., July 11, 2006. DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION, Reversed.
350 B.R. 628 (2006), In re Western Integrated Networks, LLC., Connolly, v., Fiber Instrument Sales, Inc., Nos. CO-06-021, 02-13043-EEB., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., August 25, 2006., Decision without published opinion. Reversed.
The court also *414 stated that the earlier ruling regarding postpetition payments was meant as an interim order, and since the parties had not agreed to it, the court was free to revisit the issue regarding recovery of payments by the Trustee. This appeal followed. 773, 116 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1992).
[22] Subsequently, the Bankruptcy Court reiterated the significance of the Debtors' assignment, relying on it to distinguish the present case from those in other jurisdictions that hold that pre-petition retainers for payment of post-petition attorney fees are property of the estate.
, A. The Exemption Order, 1. Conclusion, This Court concludes that the Debtors have a properly claimed homestead exemption in their interest in the Real Property. We also conclude that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtor Charlotte Kester from this case.
, A hotly contested issue at trial was whether or not a meeting took place in the winter of 2002 between Greg, his brother Curt Daviscourt (Curt), and Yokoyama, at which Greg claimed to have disclosed that the Northwest accounts receivable should be written down by $750, 000. W. Barney, M.D.P.C.
The Court concluded that [Duncan] is not entitled to claim a homestead exemption in property voluntarily transferred and recovered by the Trustee in an adversary proceeding, notwithstanding the Trustee's failure to object within the 30-day period of [Rule] 4003(b).
This appeal followed.Accordingly, we REVERSE the bankruptcy court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Trustee and REMAND to the bankruptcy court with directions to order the clerk to pay over the surplus funds together with any interest earned thereon to the Debtors.
, Andrews Davis Law Firm (Andrews Davis) appeals from an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the bankruptcy court) approving a Settlement Agreement between the Trustee and Foxglove, Inc. (Foxglove) in Adversary Proceeding No. 01-1122-WV. Power Coop.
Andrews Davis had a claim against SMACI; While it is true that the Compromise was filed in the adversary case and there was an appeal pending of the judgment in that case, the mistake in filing did not divest the bankruptcy court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Compromise. Power Coop.
Dataprose and Winfield were served with the Creditors' Second Amended Plan (Creditors' Plan), Amerivision's Third Amended Chapter 11 Plan, a notice of the confirmation hearing, and a ballot. The confirmation order did not specifically provide for assumption or rejection of any executory contracts.
JCOR argues that the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the payment was preferential because JCOR is a materialman that would have been entitled to file a statutory lien had it not been paid in full.[3] Whether the Trustee proved the fifth requirement is the subject of this appeal.
, In Grogan, the bankruptcy court denied the debtor's amended claim of exemption *817 in personal injury settlement proceeds where the cash proceeds were discovered by the trustee in an undisclosed bank account, having been deposited by the debtors only days before the bankruptcy filing.
, The matter before the Court is the Motion for Rehearing (Motion), filed March 28, 2006, by the Appellants., [21] State Sec. Co., 355 F.2d at 229 (questions of the validity of [aircraft] title documents, actual notice, good faith purchaser status, and the like, must be resolved under state law);
Debtor also suggests its post-petition performance, whereby Debtor sold a few Woodland Hills lots and made substantial adequate protection payments to Compass from proceeds of property sales, coupled with the stable release price formula provided in the Plan, supports feasibility., B. ISSUE 2
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit. The Trustee contends that his lien interest extends to the stream of payments being made by the Debtors. The bankruptcy court found that the Trustee's rights extended only to the mobile home and not the income stream.
, *141 The Trustee nonetheless argues that the Enterasys contracts did not benefit the Debtor because the services were provided to third parties and, therefore, the Debtor's benefit ceased once it received payment from its customers., [7] Mid Region, 1 F.3d at 1132.
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit. The bankruptcy court concluded that because the debtors did not leave the property and obtain a new homestead, allowing an exemption for refinancing proceeds did not serve the purposes of the homestead exemption. This appeal followed.
