DISCUSSION, A. Capacity of Nondebtor Spouse to Exempt Community Property, Carolyn urges, and the trial court so found, that a nondebtor spouse may employ a state homestead exemption in community property notwithstanding the scheduling of unrelated federal exemptions by the debtor spouse. Code Ann.
Itule argues that the bankruptcy court's determination of damages was contrary to the evidence and clearly erroneous because the bankruptcy court did not further reduce the damages by the security deposits he had paid to Metlease and by the amounts paid to Metlease under the lease agreements.
, Several cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit under the Bankruptcy Act address the validity of a claimed homestead when a bankrupt had not filed a required declaration of homestead exemption until after he filed bankruptcy. Myers at 626-27, 63 S.Ct., 194 F.2d at 231-32.
, Thomas Moore, Trial Atty., Tax Div. The Appellant's Motion to Set Aside Sale was equivalent to a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void and, therefor, the bankruptcy court should have ruled on the factual issue of whether proper notice had been actually received by the Appellant.
, In the only Ninth Circuit or Panel decisions uncovered dealing with a challenge to a violation of the automatic stay occurring in an earlier bankruptcy case, the Panel and Circuit decisions in Brooks, as well as the Globe Investment decision strike down the challenge to the action.
OVERVIEW, The debtors filed their chapter 7 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, which issued a § 341 notice setting the date for the first meeting of creditors, and specifying the deadline for filing complaints objecting to discharge. 485 F.2d at 76.
In the language of § 523(a)(2)(C), the debt is owed for cash, not for `luxury goods or services.' That the debtor sought the loan for the purpose of purchasing luxury goods or services, or chose to spend the loan proceeds in that manner, does not change the essential nature of the debt.
, for appellant Fred Cooke., The debtor, appellee Lanny R. Howarter (Howarter), had an investment business through which he invested his own money and solicited funds from others for various ventures, including Chacklan Enterprises, Inc. (Chacklan). Rubin, 875 F.2d at 758.
ISSUES, 1. Whether the state court's order that the residence be sold and the net proceeds be divided equally affected a pre-petition division of community property and debt such that appellant's interest in the residence was not property of the estate and subject to the claims of appellees.
815, 83 L. Ed. 2d 807 (1985). Ragsdale, 780 F.2d at 796.CONCLUSION, We determine that Schieber had no right to a jury trial on the issue of dischargeability and that the bankruptcy court did not err in granting Hooper's motion for involuntary dismissal as to Schieber's section 523(a)(4) claim.
DISCUSSION, The question presented by this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court has discretion under Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) to extend the time for filing § 523(c) complaints pursuant to a request made after expiration of the original deadline, but before expiration of an extended deadline.
In Nucorp, the bankruptcy court disallowed fees for time devoted to the preparation and presentation of attorneys' fee applications. 764 F.2d at 662. Mesa Refining merely noted that some courts had allowed interest on postpetition attorneys' fees after the date of the order awarding fees.
, for appellants., In the case of a debtor operating more than one business, the statutory language is ambiguous as to whether the debtor's business refers to the particular business operation for which the wage claimant worked, or to all of the debtor's business activities in aggregate.
, The appellees proposed the Plan and the court below confirmed it over the debtor's objection. Even though directly affected by an appealed order, an appellant must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.
1983), have denied a Chapter 7 debtor's use of § 506 to avoid a lien on non-estate property as being contrary to the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code when all Code provisions are fully considered. In Dewsnup, the Tenth Circuit articulated two reasons for rejecting the Third Circuit approach.
, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. When the Debtor found out that Appellant Carey intended to sell the home, the Debtor filed a motion urging the bankruptcy court to order the abandonment of the home.
, The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appeals from an order of the bankruptcy court which held that HUD did not have a perfected security interest in the revenue from debtor's nursing home., At one time, the California Commercial Code defined the term contract rights.
, Pending the district court judge's decision, debtor filed in bankruptcy court a motion entitled Application to Set Aside Right to Attach Order And Release Attached Property, Etc., which appellees opposed. Second, Bankruptcy Rule 7004(a) enumerates the service of process rules from Fed.R.Civ.P.
, The trustee also contends that due to the enactment of Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 704.730(b), cases which permit a married *340 debtor who owns a separate interest in the homestead along with his spouse to claim the entire amount of the homestead exemption, have been superseded. the exemption;
v., CITIREALTY CORPORATION, Appellee.V CONCLUSION, An interest rate award of 7% is compelled by the plain meaning of the Deed of Trust executed by the parties, by specific case authority dealing with creditor advances and by residual principles of contract interpretation in California.
