329 B.R. 358 (2005), In re; Blair., Blair, v., Stratton., EC-04-1461-PMAS, 01-17265., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit., June 20, 2005., Decisions Without Published Opinions., Affirmed.
329 B.R. 358 (2005), In re Hoover WSCR Associates Ltd., CC-04-1390-MAMOP, CC-04-1391-MAMOP., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit., May 31, 2005., Decisions Without Published Opinion., Affirmed.
The bankruptcy court entered orders overruling Debtors' objections to claims. Rules *436 cannot expand the statute;, Ultimately, as in Heath, the issue is quite narrow:, [Debtors] filed objections that relied solely on the alleged lack of prima facie validity of the proofs of claim.
, It follows that there was not adequate notice to Sallie Mae that the discharge status of an interest component of its student loan debt would be affected by the plan provision in question, which Enewally requires in order to afford preclusive effect to such a provision. Pardee, 193 F.3d at 1087.
Muegler, 413 F.3d at 983., Applying the Muegler holding to the instant case, the bankruptcy court did not need a California finding that Lee had directly obtained services from TCAST, by issuing the bad checks, in order to determine that the debt based on fraud was non-dischargeable.
at 242 (reviewing title reports generally a duty of the trustee)., [6] Appellant argues that attorneys should be able to rely on court approval of an employment application to the extent the court initially approves the nature of the proposed services detailed in the application.
Zahn v. Yucaipa Capital Fund 218 B.R., If we focus on the plain language of § 741(8), it is apparent that the Six Sigma transfer of $4 million to Circle Trust as a withdrawal of capital was not designated by the participating parties by any term that included the words settlement payment.
, Debtor argues Jorgenson initiated the contested matter by filing the proof of claim, so the Objection is akin to an answer, which may properly be served on counsel, citing FRCP 5, applicable via Rule 7005, and In re Lomas Financial Corp., 212 B.R., Notice and service are very different.
, Four Aces filed no proof of claim, but the trustee's attorney did on its behalf, as 11 U.S.C. § 501(c) and Rule 3004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure permit.The actual APR for Boganski's loan was 243.33%, while the stated APR was 121.67%, which Four Aces concedes violated TILA.
In consequence, we find that Racusin's having reduced his claim to judgment before the underlying bankruptcy cases were filed is irrelevant to the issues before us.
, Contrary to Price's assertions, the bankruptcy court had authority to impose its own sanctions in addition to referring the matter to the State Bar of California (more precisely, the court forwarded a copy of the Opinion for its review and consideration). It did not refer to debtor's letter.
, Because of debtor's counsel's frivolous arguments in connection with the city's claim, the court issued an order to show cause in the bankruptcy case why the case should not be dismissed and why Smyth should not be sanctioned for violating Rule 9011. Dyer, 322 F.3d at 1192.
The trustee objected that, under § 1327(a), Debtor was bound by the terms of his confirmed plan and that allowing the modification would violate the model plan's prohibition against payment of a plan in fewer than 36 months unless all allowed claims are paid in full. Rule 83 F.R.Civ.P.
, After a hearing on the exemption objections, the bankruptcy court issued a decision that the annuity qualified as life insurance because the total payments were contingent on Debtor living beyond the ten years. In a life insurance policy the risk assumed is to pay upon the assured's death;
First, he argues that the bankruptcy court should have dismissed the complaint filed by James F. Erhard (Erhard) objecting to his discharge for failure to serve it timely, even though he never raised this issue in the trial court. In the Statement, Roberts stated that his 2001 income was $0.00.
We agree with the bankruptcy court that the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion obviated the need for repetitive nondischargeability actions and that the chapter 7 discharge order could not provide otherwise. Paine, 283 B.R., The order of discharge is required to conform to Official Form 18.
, Filed February 1, 2005. Kruse are opposing Debtors' plan., Here, following the bankruptcy court's order approving the settlement, the parties fully released their claims, dismissed the claims with prejudice, and Geitzen and its insurer paid over the settlement funds jointly to Debtors and Bank.
, Although no evidence was ever adduced that the debtor had any thought of filing bankruptcy when he incurred the credit card debt, the putative substantial abuse was that the accumulation of credit card debt in 2002 occurred in anticipation of the 2004 bankruptcy.(c) Application of Part VII rules.
, The court agreed that California was not a proper venue and ordered transfer to the Northern District of Georgia. Most debts are likewise governed by substantive state law.[7], We conclude that Congress did not intend domicile in the bankruptcy venue statute to differ from these general rules.
If the state court had issued a final order or judgment regarding the validity of the First Judgment lien before Debtors' bankruptcy, even if incorrect as a matter of law, the bankruptcy court might well have been precluded from exercising jurisdiction to make a contrary ruling.
