, 19 In late October 2008, debtor purchased the Property from, 20 Harbhajan.-10-, 1 the bankruptcy court proceeded under the false assumption that, 2 Appellees had recorded their judgment and thus there was a, 3 judicial lien against debtors Property subject to avoidance, 4 under § 522(f).
, 19 In late October 2008, debtor purchased the Property from, 20 Harbhajan.-10-, 1 the bankruptcy court proceeded under the false assumption that, 2 Appellees had recorded their judgment and thus there was a, 3 judicial lien against debtors Property subject to avoidance, 4 under § 522(f).
, 19 In late October 2008, debtor purchased the Property from, 20 Harbhajan.-10-, 1 the bankruptcy court proceeded under the false assumption that, 2 Appellees had recorded their judgment and thus there was a, 3 judicial lien against debtors Property subject to avoidance, 4 under § 522(f).
Parker then, 12 moved to set aside the Contempt Order and debtor moved for, 13 attorneys fees., 6 The bankruptcy court then considered the various sections, 7 of Civil Rule 60(b) (incorporated by Rule 9024) and reasoned, 8 that the requirements under subsections (1 5) were not met.
Parker then, 12 moved to set aside the Contempt Order and debtor moved for, 13 attorneys fees., 6 The bankruptcy court then considered the various sections, 7 of Civil Rule 60(b) (incorporated by Rule 9024) and reasoned, 8 that the requirements under subsections (1 5) were not met.
-1-, 1 INTRODUCTION, 2 Chapter 71 debtor Robert Peter Radakovich appeals from the, 3 bankruptcy courts order denying his motion for Rule 9011, 4 sanctions against appellees Stephen and Trisha Wilson and their, 5 attorney Kevin Vibbert., 922 F.2d at 1441; See Wu, 626 F.3d at, 21 487–88;
-1-, 1 INTRODUCTION, 2 Chapter 71 debtor Robert Peter Radakovich appeals from the, 3 bankruptcy courts order denying his motion for Rule 9011, 4 sanctions against appellees Stephen and Trisha Wilson and their, 5 attorney Kevin Vibbert., 922 F.2d at 1441; See Wu, 626 F.3d at, 21 487–88;
-7-, 1 The bankruptcy court then discussed Collects third, 2 argument, that the Attorney Fee Order was merely a judgment for, 3 damages, rather than an order to pay sanctions, such that it, 4 could not be enforced via contempt. 1987) (cited as authority by the bankruptcy, 27 court in this appeal).
-7-, 1 The bankruptcy court then discussed Collects third, 2 argument, that the Attorney Fee Order was merely a judgment for, 3 damages, rather than an order to pay sanctions, such that it, 4 could not be enforced via contempt. 1987) (cited as authority by the bankruptcy, 27 court in this appeal).
BAP Rule 8013-1. Trustee sought a declaration, 14 that the jewelry at the Grove Plaza store was property of, 15 debtors estate.7, 16 LJ and Lox filed answers to the complaint and a, 17 counterclaim against trustee for damages arising from trustees, 18 seizure of the business. 229 F.3d at 766.
All of Appellants remaining claims were then, 19 set for trial., 6 According to Rule 8002(c)(2), the bankruptcy court could grant, 7 Appellant an extension of the usual fourteen-day appeal time only, 8 if he demonstrated to the court that his delayed filing was the, 9 result of excusable neglect.
All of Appellants remaining claims were then, 19 set for trial., 6 According to Rule 8002(c)(2), the bankruptcy court could grant, 7 Appellant an extension of the usual fourteen-day appeal time only, 8 if he demonstrated to the court that his delayed filing was the, 9 result of excusable neglect.
BAP Rule 8013-1. D. Idaho 2013);, 16 We conclude that the bankruptcy court correctly decided to, 17 give preclusive effect to the amounts of debt owed by Urban to, 18 BCS, and to the allocation of the damages awarded in the State, 19 Court Judgment., 7 Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.
BAP Rule 8013-1. D. Idaho 2013);, 16 We conclude that the bankruptcy court correctly decided to, 17 give preclusive effect to the amounts of debt owed by Urban to, 18 BCS, and to the allocation of the damages awarded in the State, 19 Court Judgment., 7 Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.
, 23 On August 31, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, 24 decided the Flores appeal and determined that the courts decision, 25, 26 6, The bankruptcy courts calculation of Debtors projected, disposable income in the Amended Memorandum Opinion was not, 27 challenged on appeal by Trustee.
The court therefore remanded the matter to the, 17 bankruptcy court with instructions that it consider whether, under, 18 the Rule, cause existed to extend the time for Bustos to file a, 19 complaint against Molasky and thereby establish an independent, 20 basis for jurisdiction.
The court therefore remanded the matter to the, 17 bankruptcy court with instructions that it consider whether, under, 18 the Rule, cause existed to extend the time for Bustos to file a, 19 complaint against Molasky and thereby establish an independent, 20 basis for jurisdiction.
, 1 Chapter 113 debtors Steven W. Braun (Braun) and Linda M., 2 Braun (together, Debtors) appeal the order of the bankruptcy, 3 court valuing certain real property in connection with determining, 4 the amount of a creditors deficiency claim. The bankruptcy court disagreed with, 25 both experts.
, 1 Chapter 113 debtors Steven W. Braun (Braun) and Linda M., 2 Braun (together, Debtors) appeal the order of the bankruptcy, 3 court valuing certain real property in connection with determining, 4 the amount of a creditors deficiency claim. The bankruptcy court disagreed with, 25 both experts.
ROBERT PIKE;, 14 At the hearing, after a short discussion, the bankruptcy, 15 court denied debtors motion for the additional fees on the, 16 ground that only the appellate court had the authority to award, 17 attorneys fees and costs for an appeal. In re Del Mission, Ltd., 98 F.3d at 1153–54.
