307 B.R. 731 (2004), In re Keffer Zubrod, v., Keffer., WY-03-071, 01-21574., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., March 26, 2004., Affirmed.
314 B.R. 904 (2004), IN RE DAVIS, DAVIS, v., DAVIS, NO-04-029, 03-06524-M., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., August 26, 2004. Decision without published opinion., Affirmed.
314 B.R. 904 (2004), IN RE WALLACE, SAFFA, v., WALLACE, NO-04-022, 02-00073-M., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., July 19, 2004. Decision without published opinion., Appeal Dismissed.
307 B.R. 731 (2004), In re Barnes Barnes, v., Soule., NO-03-067, NO-03-01592-R., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., January 21, 2004., Affirmed.
314 B.R. 904 (2004), IN RE PII, INC., REDMOND, v., DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., KS-03-068, KS-03-072, 97-20560-7., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Tenth Circuit., June 22, 2004. Decision without published opinion., Affirmed in part, Reversed in part.
445 (2004), In re Phyllis L. CROWDER, Debtor. This exception to § 363(m) does not apply in this appeal because Appellants attack the validity of the sale of the water rights to Verde, and they have not asserted any remedies that would not affect the validity of the sale. Osborn, 24 F.3d at 1204;
, The bankruptcy court entered an Order on Trustee's Objection to the Debtor's Claim of Exemption, sustaining the Trustee's Exemption Objection, and overruling the debtor's claim of exemption (Exemption Order)., [7] See, e.g., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 110, 118 S. Ct. 386, 130 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1994);
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit. The Chivers court found that:, the better approach is the strict interpretation of § 523(a)(2)(B) that requires a false written statement to describe the debtor's net worth, overall financial health, or ability to generate income.
A. Debtors May Use Section 522(f) to Set Aside Liens on Certain Nondischargeable Judgments, The Bank asserts that the bankruptcy court erred in setting aside its lien on the Debtors' homestead for several reasons. filed a claim for litigation costs in the district court.
The Trustee argues that because the power to withdraw funds runs to the debtor (and now to the Trustee), it is independent from the Plan itself, and the complaint is not governed by Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753, 112 S. Ct.
[4], On August 7, 2003, Ms. Lang filed in the bankruptcy court a motion (the Stay Motion) asking the court to continue the stay pending appeal in effect, anticipating a further appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision. In re King, 482 F.2d 552, 556 (10th Cir.1973) (Bankruptcy Act case);
Bankruptcy No. 00-26592.[14] Thereupon, the court stated it would take the matter under advisement and, on July 28, 2003, the Filing Restriction Order issued, granting the trustee's Motion and imposing various limitations on Armstrong's ability to litigate in the Utah bankruptcy court.
, This Court concludes, however, that the general rule of exemption is found in subsection (2)(a) of the statute, which states that [a]n individual is entitled to a homestead exemption consisting of property in this state in an amount not exceeding .
, Appellant Donald E. Armstrong (Appellant) appeals from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah dismissing his Chapter 13 case for cause on the motion of Appellees Kenneth A. Rushton and Steppes Apartments, Ltd. (Appellees)[1] pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c).
, Armstrong argues that the contempt sanctions imposed by the bankruptcy court in the Contempt Order were criminal and not civil as characterized in the Contempt Order. He also filed a motion asking the bankruptcy court to enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order.
, On December 30, 2003, Wallace filed a Complaint and a Petition for Accounting against Saffa in the Circuit Court of Du-Page County, Wheaton, Illinois (Illinois Complaint). As the Settlement Order resolved the Claim and is a final order that is not on appeal here, we may not address this argument.
, The Trustee also suggests that the bankruptcy court erred by not taking into account the historical rate of returned product in determining the value of the goods delivered by Nabisco to Furr's.
bankruptcy case.[39], *227 The bankruptcy court offered the following solutions to the problem of not allowing prepetition fees to be paid as priority claims:, Attorneys who provide prepetition services to their clients who have such severe cash flow problems are not without some succor.
In 1995, the exact date not being known from the record but after the IRS filed its Prepetition Tax Liens, LANB obtained foreclosure judgments against some of the Debtors' property (LANB Foreclosure). The bankruptcy court, therefore, did not err in voiding the Postpetition Tax Liens.
, When we evaluate the bankruptcy court's findings of fact over the foreseeable future and in the tenor of Polleys, we conclude that the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that the Debtors failed to meet their burden in establishing the second prong of the Brunner test as to the principal debt.
