CitiFinancial). The court distinguished Mailhot and Chiu, noting that in those cases the liens were still in effect, albeit on substituted property, when the debtors sought to avoid them, whereas in the instant case the Debtor had satisfied the lien before filing the Motion to Avoid Lien.
, In the meantime, on October 27, 2004, creditor Raul Hernandez Gonzalez filed a motion opposing conversion to Chapter 13, arguing that the Debtors did not meet the eligibility requirements under § 109(e) and requesting dismissal of the case under § 1112(b) for failure to propose a plan.
, Before the Panel is an appeal from a November 18, 2004 bankruptcy court decision and order granting Inmobiliaria Naihomy's (the Buyer) motion for summary judgment, and motion for leave to evict the Debtor from his home in Caguas, Puerto Rico (the Property). therefore, Rule 51.8 governs. Laws Ann.
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit.[2] On February 4, 2004, Torres filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objection to *829 Dischargeability Complaint Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(c) and Rule 7001(4) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Motion to Extend).
, In the present case, the bankruptcy court found, but without taking evidence, that Davila Torres was not incompetent at relevant times, including the dates when the Notice of Filing and the Bar Date Notice were mailed to Attorney Davison Lampon's office address. 59 applicable in bankruptcy cases;
[1] On November 17, 2004, Beatrice Heghmann (the Debtor) appealed to the Court of Appeals from the Panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order regarding her Motion for Contempt against Ronald Indorf and Djamel Hafiani, and her Motion for an Order Implementing the Automatic Stay.
McDonnell opposed both motions. Thus, the Debtor was duly warned of the consequences of failing to comply with the discovery order, and the trial court was well within its discretion to dismiss the case even when the defendant did not specifically request the dismissal in her Omnibus Motion.
The Appellant appealed the order to the district court. In his Response to Estate Counsel's Opposition to the Motion to Disgorge, the Appellant stated that the Court had ruled that Estate Counsel were creditors and that the ruling was now the law of the case. In re Martin, 817 F.2d at 180.
, Xifaras' request for fees and costs in the bankruptcy court was also based upon her assertion that Morad had filed his bankruptcy petition in bad faith. It is her primary contention that Morad filed his bankruptcy case to frustrate her legitimate efforts to enforce her state court judgment.
, The debtor, Brian P. Hildebrandt (the Debtor), appeals from the bankruptcy court's August 20, 2004 order sustaining the Chapter 7 Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of homestead exemption in real property under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 188, § 1. by deed or other writing;, Melber, 315 B.R.
See TI Fed. de Jesus Saez, 721 F.2d at 851. On appeal, the district court upheld the bankruptcy court's decision, concluding that the automatic stay terminated upon dismissal of the bankruptcy case, and the subsequent foreclosure sale by the creditors was not in violation of the automatic stay.
v., Atto Corporation, Appellee. See Keller v. United States, 38 F.3d 16, 25 (1st Cir.1994).[9] Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the Aokis had not offered a satisfactory explanation for the loss of Byroma's assets and denying the Aokis a discharge under § 727(a)(5).
605 (2005), Troy SMITH and Elizabeth J. Smith, Debtors. The entire ECMC loan was discharged. Despite this testimony, the bankruptcy court failed to consider the likelihood of future increases to Troy's income that would impact the Smiths' ability to pay their student loans. 731 (comparing tests).
Mary Rowe with a mortgage of $17, 000;, The bankruptcy court also concluded that the instant case is little more than an attempt to reverse the abstention order entered by the court in the interpleader action, which the Debtor removed to this Court in her third bankruptcy case.
JURISDICTION, A bankruptcy appellate panel may hear appeals from final judgments, orders and decrees [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)] or with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3)].
, On December 16, 2002, the district court issued an Opinion and Order granting partial summary judgment in favor of DCC, holding that all loans made by Rivera to Coachman were subordinated and that Coachman's repayments to Rivera violated the Subordination Agreement. bankruptcy judges.
At issue in this appeal is whether Morad was domiciled in Florida during the 180-day period preceding the bankruptcy filing in order to claim the benefit of Florida state exemptions. However, Judge Kenner subsequently transferred the case to Judge Rosenthal due to her impending retirement.
Moreover, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has concluded that a liquor license transferred as a part of a lease transaction does not constitute an interest in property, but is *260 merely a temporary right to use the license during the life of the lease., 186 F.3d 301, 305 (3d Cir.1999);
