-6-, 1 35th Place Property: Based on Chens testimony and the, 2 documents produced, Petteys was unable to confirm the amount, 3 Chen received from the sale of this property or the ultimate, 4 disposition of the sale proceeds. Trustee was not required to, 10 investigate and acquire Chens records.
For these reasons, the court found, 22 that the 2011 Agreement was intended to benefit Haller Farms and, 23 that Haller Farms did benefit from Debtor's transfer of the 2/3 of, 24 net proceeds from the 2011 blueberry crop to Sakuma.20 the record does not support Trustee's unjust enrichment claim.
No. 3:13-bk-47285-PBS, ), 7 Debtor. Since IPC did not, 18 perfect its security interest in the consigned fuel, the, 19 bankruptcy court granted Trustee summary judgment on her first, 20 cause of action, declaring that the CSA was a true consignment, 21 subject to the provisions of U.C.C.
20 2016, RW Meridian filed its chapter 7 petition. In re RW Meridian LLC, 553 B.R., 9 On appeal from the ruling declaring the tax sale void, we, 10 affirmed., 13 Here, Imperial County has not identified any particularized, 14 or concrete injury arising from the bankruptcy courts sale, 15 order.
The bankruptcy court determined that Debtor had filed his, 4, case and plan solely with a litigation objective and not to, 5, reorganize., 2 Less than one week after the settlement between the chapter 7, 3 trustee and U.S. Bank, Debtor filed a third bankruptcy case, this, 4 time under chapter 11.
, 2 In 2007, Ms. Reeves decided to leave FIMG., 2 The bankruptcy court held that the Debtors did not need to, 3 raise the advice-of-counsel issue in the state court or in their, 4 answer in the adversary proceeding., 18 Ms. Goddard informed the Debtors that they did not owe Campbell, 19 any money.
, 8 D. The Automatic Stay: § 362(a)(6), 9 The bankruptcy court also found that the Countys, 10 postpetition tax sale violated § 362(a)(6), which stays any act, 11 to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that, 12 arose before the commencement of [the debtors bankruptcy, 13 case].
, 8 D. The Automatic Stay: § 362(a)(6), 9 The bankruptcy court also found that the Countys, 10 postpetition tax sale violated § 362(a)(6), which stays any act, 11 to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that, 12 arose before the commencement of [the debtors bankruptcy, 13 case].
, 8 D. The Automatic Stay: § 362(a)(6), 9 The bankruptcy court also found that the Countys, 10 postpetition tax sale violated § 362(a)(6), which stays any act, 11 to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that, 12 arose before the commencement of [the debtors bankruptcy, 13 case].
BAP Rule 8013-1.3 valued Chapter 71 debtors, Manal Naoom and Nashat Naoom, 4 (Debtors), investment property at $600, 000.00, and, 5 (2) partially avoided Credit Ones judicial lien pursuant to, 6 § 522(f)(1). The court explained:, 2 appraisal methodology is not a matter of mere math and, averages.
BAP Rule 8013-1.3 valued Chapter 71 debtors, Manal Naoom and Nashat Naoom, 4 (Debtors), investment property at $600, 000.00, and, 5 (2) partially avoided Credit Ones judicial lien pursuant to, 6 § 522(f)(1). The court explained:, 2 appraisal methodology is not a matter of mere math and, averages.
], 15 Prior to the hearing on the Objection, the bankruptcy court, 16 issued a tentative ruling.15, 1 estate. When he filed for bankruptcy without listing the, 18, property in his schedules and later claimed a homestead exemption, 19 in his equitable interest, the trustee objected under § 522(g).
], 15 Prior to the hearing on the Objection, the bankruptcy court, 16 issued a tentative ruling.15, 1 estate. When he filed for bankruptcy without listing the, 18, property in his schedules and later claimed a homestead exemption, 19 in his equitable interest, the trustee objected under § 522(g).
BAP Rule 8024-1. In this case, the bankruptcy, 2 court granted the Raicevics motion for summary judgment after, 3 applying issue preclusion to the Final Amended Judgment, and, 4 denied Lopezs motion for summary judgment after declining to, 5 apply issue preclusion to the Travis Findings.
BAP Rule 8024-1. In this case, the bankruptcy, 2 court granted the Raicevics motion for summary judgment after, 3 applying issue preclusion to the Final Amended Judgment, and, 4 denied Lopezs motion for summary judgment after declining to, 5 apply issue preclusion to the Travis Findings.
, 6 (2) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in selecting the, 7 applicable prejudgment interest rate., 189 F.3d 1017, 1032 (9th, 4 Cir., 23, 24 We therefore accept the seven percent prejudgment interest, 25 rate but adjust the courts damages award to exclude damages for, 26 loss of property value.
, 6 (2) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in selecting the, 7 applicable prejudgment interest rate., 189 F.3d 1017, 1032 (9th, 4 Cir., 23, 24 We therefore accept the seven percent prejudgment interest, 25 rate but adjust the courts damages award to exclude damages for, 26 loss of property value.
, 1 BRAND, Bankruptcy Judge:, 2, 3 Chapter 72 debtor Cecil Gill appeals an order denying his, 4 motion to compel the chapter 7 trustee to abandon the estates, 5 interest in Debtors residence (Residence), which was subject to, 6 a tax lien by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). penalty .
2, 1 prosecute the claims. The Morabito, 21 Parties argue that, if a bankruptcy court has discretion to, decide abandonment, we would not have remanded for further, 22, findings in Brown, because courts have discretion to deny relief, 23 even if there is no value or benefit to the estate.
Domingo argued, 10 that the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion by dismissing, 11 the original complaint without prejudice and allowing Portugues to, 12 file and serve an amended complaint after the 60-day statute of, 13 limitations under Rule 4007(c) had run. ISSUES, 5 1.28 45 F.3d at 78;
