In ordering the distribution it did in this case, the bankruptcy *639 court exceeded its powers under § 105(a) by creating a hybrid creature not recognized by the Bankruptcy Code: a Chapter 7 without the protections of a trustee, or a Chapter 11 without the protections of a confirmed plan.
, Appellees. The United States Trustee now appeals the bankruptcy court's final order approving administrative claim and disbursement of funds, which includes final approval and disbursement of *128 $1, 250.20 in compensation to the chapter 7 debtor's attorneys from the bankruptcy estate.
Nardei's motion requesting an extension of time was filed three days after the deadline for the filing of complaints objecting to dischargeability of debts or discharge of the Debtor., Finally, Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(3) provides: The court may enlarge the time for taking action under Rules .
In his argument that the bankruptcy court denied him an opportunity to present proof that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law, the Debtor only mentions that he would have offered the contracts between these parties, the affidavit of the Debtor and the affidavit of an expert witness.
In an order granting Norwest's summary judgment motion, the bankruptcy judge simply stated: This Court finds that the portion of the Motion for Summary Judgment relating to Ohio's lis pendens statute, Ohio Rev.Code § 2703.26, is well taken and is, therefore, granted. Co., 53 Ohio St. 151, 41 N.E.
See Millar [Miller] v. Hall, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.[3], *426 After Seminole Tribe, the Supreme Court issued five more decisions applying the doctrine that Congress cannot abrogate state sovereignty in the circumstances of the specific Article I powers at issue in those cases. 2219, 144 L. Ed. 2d 605).
Kollar v. Miller, 176 F.3d 175 (3d Cir.1999); The Panel concludes that the proper interpretation of DeMarco is consistent with the nearly unanimous line of cases holding that a contingent property interest is property of the estate and therefore this interpretation is persuasive.
261 B.R. 196 (2001), In re Richard A. ZINNI and Kimberly M. Zinni, Debtors., Knowles Building Co., Plaintiff-Appellant v., Richard A. Zinni, et al., Defendants-Appellees., No. 00-8051., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit., Submitted on Briefs January 30, 2001.
This deposit was a check payable to Auto Group and not Motor Cars., There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that the Debtor engaged in a check kiting scheme. Three checks totaling $67, 150.00 were written on the Mellon Bank account and deposited into the PNC account.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW, The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders from the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Ohio. AMS immediately assigned its interest in the note and mortgage to IMC.
In referring to the trial it conducted in this matter the bankruptcy court went on to state:, In rendering its judgment, the Court concluded that the state court judgment was entitled to preclusive effect as to the amount and nature of the debt. See Barker v. Barker (1997), 118 Ohio App.
