Accordingly, the Panel has jurisdiction over the appeals of final orders entered by bankruptcy courts in the Northern District of Ohio. The Rule's mandate that every appeal filed in the bankruptcy court shall be heard by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit unless .
690, 139 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1998). See Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 382 (6th Cir.1994) ([W]hen the nonmoving party presents direct evidence refuting the moving party's motion for summary judgment, the court must accept that evidence as true. Credit, Inc., 971 F.2d at 1067.
The Debtor also appeals the bankruptcy court's order finding her in contempt of court for failing to abide by the court's interim order which required her to turn over all postpetition insurance renewal commissions to Richard A. Baumgart, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the Trustee). OHIO REV.CODE ANN.
, Congress clouded rather than clarified the rights of debtors to modify claims secured by home mortgages when it enacted 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2) and any endeavor to address the majority's reasoning seems futile in light of the conflicting approaches by various courts.
When Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Code, it provided expressly for both pre- and postpetition penalties. 1524, 1525, 134 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1996), the Supreme Court held the bankruptcy court may not equitably subordinate claims on a categorical basis in derogation of Congress's scheme of priorities.
Dayton Power Light ($200 claim);) The court heard evidence from Todd Moss, Eric Opperman and Joe Opperman that there was an outstanding debt to Majestic. Jerry Booher testified that the basis of Booher's claim was that Eastown never provided title to trucks that Booher had purchased from Eastown.
As such, 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) allows an oversecured claimant not only postpetition interest payments but also affords reasonable fees, costs and charges as provided in the attendant security agreement.
Janna Boggs, Debtor., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit. The Lawrence County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas issued an Order (the Order) which required *478 Boggs to pay $10, 000 to Cundiff toward his accrued attorney fees in their pending domestic relations case.
United States v. Gaitan-Acevedo, 148 F.3d 577, 588 (6th Cir. Although the Trustee was unable to produce the original inventory cards and computer records, the bankruptcy court admitted the Trustee's exhibits into evidence based upon the interplay between two exceptions to the best evidence rule
, The Ohio Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of Schory on all of Francis's claims. The Panel holds that a general release as part of a settlement of a tort claim does not serve as a novation allowing a debt incurred by fraud to be discharged in bankruptcy.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW, The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear appeals of final orders. After a trial, the bankruptcy court determined that Molino's obligation to Hart was excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(15)., C. Balancing Test.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW, The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide this appeal. See Baer v. Montgomery (In re Montgomery), 219 B.R. The Searles court found that EICs are not property of the estate pursuant to § 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act.
Salem Bend appealed. Salem Bend asserts that the nondischargeability of its debt is supported by the reasoning of Perkins and Wheeler which make an intentional act that results in an injury sufficient cause to determine a debt is nondischargeable, regardless of the debtors intent to cause harm.
1833, 114 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1991), the Supreme Court heard a similar issue regarding a Florida statute and held that Florida could not exclude certain liens from the bankruptcy code's lien avoidance provision, even though Florida did exclude the liens from its homestead exemption. East Cambridge Sav.
, On February 28, 1997, Powell filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and to file an answer out of time. United Coin, 705 F.2d at 845. The bankruptcy court held this defense is not meritorious because a constructive trust had not been imposed by a prepetition state court judgment.
191 (1998), In re Charlie D. BROWN and Jimmie M. Brown, Debtors. The bankruptcy court held that the Trustee could not seek a modification to provide for the payment of the personal injury proceeds into the plan since principles of res judicata bar the modification. 1642, 104 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1989)).
The Panel vacates the order discharging the student loans and remands the case for required factual findings. Brunner, 831 F.2d at 396. Andrews Univ. That finding suggests that the bankruptcy court only considered Dolph's job search under the third part of the Cheesman test, regarding good faith.
, In applying § 523(a)(5) in the Sixth Circuit, the initial inquiry must be to ascertain whether the state court or the parties to the divorce intended to create an obligation to provide support through the assumption of the joint debts. 353, 93 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1986). 3d 159, 663 N.E.2d 944 (1995);
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW, The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide this appeal. To prove Shartz's intent to deceive, Providian relied on Shartz's use of cash advances from credit cards to make payments on other credit cards while she was unemployed.
, 2) Whether the bankruptcy court properly applied summary judgment principles in finding the Debtor's federal tax liability nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C)., (1) for a tax or a customs duty 22, 50 L. Ed. 2d 12 (1976)] line of cases does not support such a position.
