See U.S. Const. 1372, 128 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1994); A short examination of the issues raised by Telco on appeal in relation to these five factors reveals the problems that would be faced if we were to exercise jurisdiction and reverse the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order or Modification Order.
The court also imposed sanctions sua sponte under Bankruptcy Rule 9011., Stites further contends that the court abused its discretion by disregarding its prior order in a similar case in which the court denied a trustee's motion to transfer a case for improper venue and retained the case.
, An order procedurally consolidating the respective appeals was filed by this court. 1600, 89 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1986). Melding the broad interpretation of section 541 together with the classification of EICs as refunds, most courts hold EICs are property of the estate in bankruptcy.(a) General Rule.
942 (D.Kan.1994) (District Court Order), the district court reversed the Bankruptcy Court Order, concluding that the United States was entitled to setoff because both the debt CRP owed to Buckner for CRP payments and FmHA's claim against Buckner for mortgage payments arose prepetition.
The Order to Show Cause directed Aspect Technology of Plano, Texas (Aspect Technology), the cross appellant, to file a memorandum addressing whether its notice of cross appeal in BAP No. EO-97-056 was untimely so as to deprive this Court of jurisdiction.
Prince Gardner, 220 B.R., The appellee also argues that this Court should apply the standard established by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that, under 11 U.S.C. § 549, any tax sale conducted in accordance with state law should be considered valid under the BFP decision.
As it was then required to do, the bankruptcy court applied the Tenth Circuit's decisions in Pasek and Posta when it determined that Debtor did not act willfully and maliciously in failing to settle Berger's lawsuit before the district court granted summary judgment for Page Engineering.
, Curtis Dale Dewey (Debtor) appeals an order in which the bankruptcy court sustained an objection filed by Doris Dewey, the Debtor's former spouse (Dewey), to the confirmation of the Debtor's Chapter 13 plan. Whether a debt is support is an issue of federal law. 997 F.2d at 726 n. 7.
182, 126 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1993); This right to redeem the property was not affected by the Debtor's bankruptcy case or the bankruptcy court's Relief Order, and neither this Court nor the bankruptcy court need be involved in any redemption of the property sold to the Appellee at the foreclosure sale.
v., UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Appellee., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit., Georg Jensen (Jensen) appeals from an order denying his application for allowance of attorney fees and prohibiting him from pursuing postconfirmation collection from the debtor-in-possession.
The Debtor's tax returns for 1986 through 1988 were filed, and therefore the Debtor's tax debts for those years (except for a portion of the 1987 tax debt held to be nondischargeable under §§ 507(a)(8) and 523(a)(1)(A)) are not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).
Some work, such as obtaining court approval of sales of assets recovered for one of the estates, and defending Darrah's claim against objections, would have been done only for one client or the other, but Winship's work in recovering assets would have effectively been done for both.
144, 88 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1985). The debtor's state law right of redemption, to the extent that it exists when a bankruptcy petition is filed, extends for 60 days beyond the state law time frame by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) upon the filing of a petition.
2431, 41 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1974), the Supreme Court addressed whether income tax refunds are property under the former Bankruptcy Act, and, if so, whether they were exempt as earnings under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA). This statute was not addressed by the bankruptcy court in its Order.
, Robert L. Kukuk, one of the debtors in this chapter 7 case (Kukuk), appeals a judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma finding a portion of his credit card debt to Chevy Chase Bank FSB (Bank) to be non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
A trial court's admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In support of this finding, the bankruptcy court stated that the payments, presumably the Clarendon Premium Transfers and the U.S. Capital Premium Transfers, were made after the respective Bonds were issued.
Conclusion, The Bankruptcy Court correctly determined that the Debtors' prepetition 1992 tax liability was not a claim covered by § 1305(a)(1), and that the debt was provided for in the Debtors' chapter 13 plan and was discharged under § 1328(a).
, The United States Trustee (UST) appeals an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denying its motion to dismiss the Debtors' chapter 7 case due to improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Oklahoma. 17 James Wm.
Instead, they first raised the issue at the sale hearing, after the Bankruptcy Court ruled on the motion to sell., In this case, Kenan sought approval of the sale under § 363 even though the confirmed plan of reorganization did not require an auction or a court order to sell the properties.
The parties stipulated that Smolen knew that deposits and payments were all made from Hatley's personal account and the Bankruptcy Court found that Smolen knew that deposits and payments with respect to the Planes were to be made to and from Hatley's personal account. Seay, 215 B.R.
