Bankruptcy No. 05-15221-JMD. 1730, 135 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1996), AmEx and eCast contend that they were not required to identify the prepetition interest and other charges that contributed to their claim because such charges can never be relegated to the subordinated priority of § 726(a)(4).
Moreover, federal law governs the rate of postjudgment interest on a federal court judgment even in an action otherwise governed by state law. Many have applied the state law interest rate for determining prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer judgments arising under § 544(b).
Bankruptcy No. 00-00852-GAC. The Debtors sought an order requiring Doral to withdraw the mortgage deed and surrender the mortgage for cancellation, and $25, 000 in actual damages, $75, 000 in punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Credit Union v. DelBonis, 72 F.3d 921, 928 (1st Cir.1995);
, Consejo filed an opposition, entitled Motion in Opposition to Amount Claimed for Attorneys' Fees, asking the court to disallow the fees because the court did not approve the employment of Debtor's counsel or authorize his $200 hourly rate in connection with the adversary proceeding.
Bankruptcy No. 05-08110-SEK. Because the Creditors failed to effectively appeal or brief the issue of whether the bankruptcy court properly ordered the cancellation of their cautionary notice of complaint, they have waived that argument, and the order of cancellation will not be disturbed.
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit., Francis Lafayette (Attorney Lafayette) appeals from the bankruptcy court's order (the Sanctions Order) imposing monetary sanctions against him for violating Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and §§ 707(b)(4)(C) and (D). Caterpillar Fin.
PETER J. WOODFORD, Debtor. of Registration in Medicine, 832 N.E.2d 628, 634 (Mass. 2005) (citing Heacock v. Heacock, 520 N.E.2d 151, 152 n.2 (Mass. 1988) (explaining that res judicata is the generic term for various doctrines by which a judgment in one action has a binding effect in another)).
, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (AHMSI), one of several defendants in this adversary proceeding, appeals the bankruptcy court's entry of a separate, supposedly final, judgment against its co-defendants, Wanda Fuentes and Carmen Torres. See Darr v. Muratore, 8 F.3d 854, 862 (1st Cir.1993).
The Debtor responded that the state court judge had ordered the district attorney's office to return the documents to the Debtor, that this did not occur, and that the Debtor filed a motion to compel in the bankruptcy court while the case was pending with a different bankruptcy judge. See TI Fed.
That motion was denied, and on May 9, 2006, the bankruptcy court entered Gillis' Order of Discharge., On August 27, 2008, Judge Rosenthal issued the Order excepting Yules' claim *142 against Gillis from discharge under § 523(a)(6) and revoking Gillis' discharge under §§ 727(d)(1) and (2).
, Daisy L. Stanley-Snow (the Debtor) appeals from the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of David Backlund and Sharon Backlund (the Plaintiffs) on their claim that a state court judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs was nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).
Curiously, in the order dismissing the chapter 13 case, the bankruptcy court observed that Hamilton was free to pursue any claims of the debtor in state court in *720 light of the dismissal of this [the underlying bankruptcy] case. See Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35, 42 (1st Cir.2004);
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit. See TI Fed. Although the sanction awards provide ample cause for the order directing the undistributed plan payments to NHCS, it is doubtful that those funds were vested in the Debtor immediately before the commencement of the case.
When the trustee posited in her brief that a meeting is not concluded for exemption objection deadlines until she announces the meeting concluded or the bankruptcy court so orders, it was not relevant as to whether she held open the meeting to enable the Debtor time to file her tax return.
, William B. Lumb (the Debtor) appeals from a bankruptcy court order (the Order) granting defendant Nahabet Cimenian's (Cimenian) motion to dismiss the Debtor's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Thomas v. Rhode Island, 542 F.3d 944, 948 (1st Cir.2008).
, Nectarios Fatsis (the Debtor) appeals from the bankruptcy court's order finding him in contempt and imposing monetary sanctions against him for selling property of the estate without court permission in violation of the order confirming his chapter 13 plan. Goya Foods, 290 F.3d at 78.
, We will address each issue in turn., Finally, the Appellant neither objected to the Trustee's motion to retain Mintz Levin, nor did he appeal from the bankruptcy court's order granting the motion, and, if he ever did have standing, the time for filing such an appeal expired a long time ago.
Bankruptcy No. 07-10520-ANV., Louis F. Sasso and Alicia A. Sasso (the Debtors) appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court, entered October 6, 2008, denying their motion to dismiss their chapter 13 case (the October 6 Order). Corp. v. Harrington (In re Harrington), 992 F.2d 3, 5 (1st Cir.1993)).
[5] Thus, the sole question *543 before us is whether the plan provisions for the Wells Fargo secured claim comply with the equal payment provisions of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) of the Bankruptcy Code. Instead, the bankruptcy court simply noted Hearing held. or, (bb) discharge under section 1328;
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit. Because both parties addressed the Order Sustaining Objection in their briefs and the record reflects that the Debtor intended to appeal the Order Sustaining Relief and that Wells Fargo was not misled, we consider both orders.
