v., Carlton P. Boggs, et al. Bankruptcy No. 97-50941. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated excusable neglect for failing to file their notice of appeal or motion for extension of time to appeal within the 10 day time period required by FED.
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit.OPINION, The bankruptcy court denied the debtors' motion to reopen their bankruptcy case after determining that they had executed a valid reaffirmation agreement with National City Bank and had not effectively rescinded the agreement.
(12/9/1999 Order.), The first two of the Sorah indicia are clearly met with regard to the sale of the personal property. The Chancery Court labeled the obligations support and maintenance, and required Bryant Bailey to turn over the property to Kimberly Bailey for her to sell.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW, The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide this appeal. retail value. Because neither party introduced any additional evidence of value, the bankruptcy court concluded that the vehicle's replacement value is $7, 937.50.
Because the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court's orders were not final orders within the jurisdiction of that court, this Bankruptcy Appellate Panel lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and the appeal will be dismissed.(2) Core proceedings include, but are not limited to
Luppino, 221 B.R. However, the bankruptcy *630 court erroneously concluded that Spring Works had not shown that the state court judgment of $38, 708.22 compensatory damages for breach of the duty of loyalty was connected to Sarff's conduct and intention to cause Spring Works injury.
, The bankruptcy court sanctioned John Timmons, Ann Root, and Pryor Timmons *689 (the Timmons Heirs or the Heirs)[1] under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 for their conduct in connection with the filing of a claim in this Chapter 13 case. The court held a hearing on this order and issued a written opinion.
Because the bankruptcy court failed to distinguish the particular facts of this case from neglect due to law office upheaval, we find that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying the Debtor's motion for an extension of the time to appeal based on excusable neglect.
These two drafting errors render the statute ambiguous. 195 F.3d at 1058-60. Indeed in these cases, the bankruptcy judge specifically found that the services of the debtors' attorneys were necessary to the administration of the estates and United States Trustee has not challenged those findings.
FACTS, The following facts are taken from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirming the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio's (District Court) judgment in favor of Gonzalez:, [The Debtor] and Gonzalez married in 1978. Miller v. J.D.
I. ISSUES ON APPEAL, The first issue on appeal is whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy that the Debtor purchased before filing a Chapter 11 case, but did not disclose, are property of the bankruptcy estate that was converted to Chapter 7 after plan confirmation. (December 13, 1999 Order.
A petitioning creditor appeals. has accepted the plan. The bankruptcy court, applying Bankruptcy Code § 348(d), held as a matter of law that post-conversion, the Petitioning Creditors are creditors solely in the Converted Case and no longer hold claims against the Reorganized Debtor.
, In this case, a secured creditor appeals the bankruptcy court's determination that the appropriate value of a vehicle for purposes of redemption pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 722 is the liquidation value. amounts to a right of first refusal on a foreclosure sale of the property involved.
