DISCUSSION, The narrow question is whether issues that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in the course of obtaining an arbitration award that was confirmed as a judgment by a California court are eligible for issue preclusive effect under California law. Khaligh
509 (2006), In re Jill C. DEUEL, Debtor. As the Ninth Circuit recognized in Professional Investment, any information or notice which [the trustee] attained after that period [i.e., after the filing of the petition] did not bear on his status as a bona fide purchaser at the time of filing.
, Upon learning from their counsel that Tippetts had sold the Property, the trustee filed an adversary proceeding against them, Coleman, and Lenders, seeking turnover of the sale proceeds under § 542, and to avoid lenders' liens and quiet title. However Irwin . Miranda B., 328 F.3d at 1186.
As of date of filing, debtor's known interest in the pension has a value of $1, 000.17 . ISSUES, 1. Rule 8013; Rightly or not, the court on 26 July 2001 entered an order sustaining the trustee's objection to Cogliano's first amended claim of exemption, and an amended order on 6 August 2001.
That omission waives the issue on appeal, Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 285 (7th Cir.2003); After all, Wall Street's successful assertion of those rights triggered JSJF's bankruptcy filing, and it referenced the judgment by court, case number, and date in its initial timely claim, claim 11.
Hence, the confirmation of a plan providing for payment on a claim in a particular amount does not trump a proof of claim for a higher amount without compliance with standard claim objection procedure.[5] Litton contends that Rule 3001(f) operated to place the burden of proof on the debtor.
ISSUE, Whether the debtor had a good faith intent to reside at property in which, when he recorded a Washington declaration of homestead, he no longer owned a legal or equitable interest, that was in the process of court-ordered sale, and from which he had been removed pursuant to court order.
369 (2006), In re Lucia ALBARRAN and Antonio Barboza, Debtors. It argued that the undisputed evidence showed that there was no tribal issue as to Debtors' knowledge that an injury to New Form's copyright was substantially certain to occur from their duplication of the India Maria Pictures.
, The bankruptcy court agreed with Moravits that the default judgment conclusively determined that Debtor had violated the Texas statute by not paying over the funds he received from the Bank to Moravits for that purpose. This general principle applies to state construction trust fund statutes.
Here the possession of the leases is a disputed issue. It argues instead that Debtor failed to carry out its duties to perfect NetBank's security interest and that this should be considered in connection with Trustee's argument that the transactions at issue are loans rather than sales.
ISSUE, The sole issue raised is whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion when it refused to enter a default judgment in favor of Cashco based only on the prima facie allegations of the amended complaint but, instead, drew inferences from the evidence that were unfavorable to Cashco.
61, 148 L. Ed. 2d 27 (2000); First, in order to recover under state law for a violation of TILA, Trustee would have to prove that she was the prevailing party in a civil action for either statutory or actual damages, pursuant to the provision for civil liability, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).
, Filed May 15, 2006. See Ho, 274 B.R. Although the bankruptcy court emphasized the existence of chapter 7 nondischargeable debt (which is listed in Warren), no reported decision of ours, or of the Ninth Circuit, has actually held that the presence of such debt suffices to deny plan confirmation.
FRCP 60(b)(6), USF also asked the bankruptcy court to reconsider the order disallowing its Claim under FRCP 60(b)(6). USF now argues that the bankruptcy court should have scheduled the hearing on the Objection at least 30 days after the service of the Notice as required by Rule 3007.
Exhibit E to Complaint., Less than 90 days later, Laizure and his wife filed a chapter 7 petition., BFI primarily relies on Hackney, wherein the bankruptcy court held that a creditor who pays back a preferential payment to the trustee has its nondischargeable claim against the debtor reinstated.
An attorney represents a client Because there was inadequate evidence upon which the bankruptcy court could decide that confidential information was not disclosed during prior contacts between the Tevises and Wilke Fleury, the court could not properly decide the disinterestedness issue.
, Appellees. Eisenberg also testified that he told Dye that Meister's alleged misconduct was a reason not to pay Eriksen., A frequent setting for disputes over trustee removal (as it also is for attorney disqualification) is an alleged conflict of interest, and the instant case is no exception.
His property interests included an undivided one-half interest in real property in Los Angeles.A, The narrow question is whether the in rem order entered by the Grimes bankruptcy court was effective in the later Johnson bankruptcy case to trump the provision in § 362(a) that a petition filed .
On July 6, 1999, the bankruptcy court[3] entered *733 an order approving the employment of Appellant as Debtor's general bankruptcy counsel. In determining if it has jurisdiction, a federal court examines whether the parties have standing, the case or controversy is ripe, or the issue is moot.
, We begin by confirming that the Hamptons had a claim against Guastella, and their claim was a debt within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code at the commencement of this case.
