Navigation



4929 search results for query bankruptcy


All

Schreiber v. US Bankruptcy Court , schreiber-v-us-bankruptcy-court (2000)

PER CURIAM:* Harry Schreiber appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s refusal to reopen his chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding For example, the bankruptcy court noted, perceptively, that Schreiber seemed to be requesting to be bonded out of federal prison. The judgment of the district court, affirming the bankruptcy court, is AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR.

Reiners v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court , 885 F.2d 868 (1989)

Bankruptcy Court* NO. 89-4249 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

Ballard v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court , 784 F.2d 1113 (1986)

Bankruptcy Court 85-4501 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. 2/24/86 S.D.Miss., 782 F.2d 1038

Ballard v. U.S. Bankruptcy Ct , 782 F.2d 1038 (1986)

Bankruptcy Ct. 85-4501 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. 1/22/86 1 S.D.Miss.

Anti Lothian Bankruptcy Fraud v. Lothian Oi , anti-lothian-bankruptcy-fraud-v-lothian-oi (2013)

On June 13, 2007, Lothian filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy plan was confirmed on June 27, 2008. STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing a bankruptcy appeal from the district court, this court applies “the same standard to the bankruptcy court’s findings

Cooper Petroleum Company v. Henry Hart, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. Bk-1-37, Henry Hart, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. Bk-1-37 v. Cooper Petroleum Company , 379 F.2d 777 (1967)

379 F.2d 777 COOPER PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellant,v.Henry HART, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. BK-1-37, Appellee.Henry HART, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. Bankruptcy Act § 60(b), 11 U.S.C. § 96(b).

Bankr. L. Rep. P 67,015 in Re Davis Transport & Rentals, Inc., Bankrupt. Virginia Hicklin Taylor v. J. C. Van Voorhis, Trustee , 585 F.2d 743 (1978)

Meanwhile, in the straight bankruptcy proceeding that had been initiated on January 3, the bankruptcy judge entered an adjudication of bankruptcy, dated The bankruptcy judge in the straight bankruptcy proceeding determined the date of bankruptcy as February 11, 1974, the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy bankruptcy petition was filed.

Matter of Querner , matter-of-querner (1993)

s bankruptcy estate.1 In January 1990, the bankruptcy court confirmed a Chapter 13 Plan. Rule 1016 gives a bankruptcy court discretion to dismiss or continue a bankruptcy case after the death of a debtor. Although the bankruptcy court was familiar with the assets of the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy judge had no special knowledge regarding the disputes

30 Collier bankr.cas.2d 231, Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,619 in the Matter of Jimmie L. Querner, Sr., Debtor. Thera Querner v. Jimmie L. Querner, Jr. , 7 F.3d 1199 (1993)

s bankruptcy estate.1 In January 1990, the bankruptcy court confirmed a Chapter 13 Plan. Although the bankruptcy court was familiar with the assets of the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy judge had no special knowledge regarding the disputes bankruptcy case.

Casey , casey (2003)

certain conduct of “bankruptcy petition preparers.” The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order. Trustee the names of any clients “to whom blank bankruptcy petition forms have been provided for the purpose of filing pro se bankruptcy cases.”

In the Matter of Glenn D. Lee, Debtors. Dougal C. Pope v. Gary J. Knostman, Trustee , 884 F.2d 897 (1989)

Sec. 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2017. Sec. 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2017. Sec. 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2017, and not because it was preferential under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547. Bankruptcy Rule 2017 and 11 U.S.C.

In Re Yorkshire, LLC , 540 F.3d 328 (2008)

two bankruptcy petitions in bad faith; and second, whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in the amount of sanctions it imposed. First, Appellants contend that the Bankruptcy Court erred in holding that the reason they asserted for filing for bankruptcy was illegitimate. and Knight had legal authority to file for bankruptcy))we would not disturb the Bankruptcy Court’s decision.

In Re Yorkshire, LLC , 540 F.3d 328 (2008)

filing two bankruptcy petitions in bad faith; and second, whether the Bankruptcy Court 1 Knight later admitted the Luedtkes First, Appellants contend that the Bankruptcy Court erred in holding that the reason they asserted for filing for bankruptcy was illegitimate. and Knight had legal authority to file for bankruptcy))we would not disturb the Bankruptcy Court’s decision.

Pickle v. Greenstein , 149 F.3d 1174 (1998)

the judgment of the bankruptcy court. The same rule applies in bankruptcy appeals. A district court’s ruling on a bankruptcy court’s interlocutory order may leave nothing for the bankruptcy court to do, and thus transform the bankruptcy

In the Matter of Brints Cotton Marketing, Inc., Debtor. Mike Addison v. David R. Langston, Trustee , 737 F.2d 1338 (1984)

with" in the bankruptcy proceeding. ) of the Bankruptcy Act, the predecessor section of section 502(c) of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978). that might have accrued to them absent bankruptcy.

In Re Harolyn Anderson, Debtor. Richard M. Anderson, Cross-Appellee v. Harolyn Anderson, Cross-Appellant, and John F. Bufe, Trustee , 936 F.2d 199 (1991)

Richard asserts that he became aware of that payment's origin at a later hearing in the bankruptcy court. 5 The bankruptcy court Sec. 303(h)(1), the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction ab initio and thus ultimately did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the bankruptcy or The Bankruptcy Court's Determinations. 17 The bankruptcy court found that Richard violated Sec. 329 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule

In Re Skuna River Lumber, LLC , 564 F.3d 353 (2009)

had previously purchased at a bankruptcy court ordered auction sale by a credit bid from the bankruptcy estate of its debtor, appellee Skuna River Lumber The bankruptcy court in its September 22, 2006 order surcharged the “assets of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate” purportedly pursuant to section 506(c) of Skuna acknowledges the general rule that a bankruptcy court loses jurisdiction over assets once they are transferred from the bankruptcy estate.

McCloy v. Silverthorne , 296 F.3d 370 (2002)

being administered in bankruptcy." This lease was entered into during the bankruptcy proceedings, and the bankruptcy court characterized it as “peculiar.” Under the bankruptcy code, an involuntary bankruptcy petition cannot be brought against a farmer. 11 U.S.C. § 303(a).

Raul-Galaz-V-Lisa-Galaz , ca5 raul-galaz-v-lisa-galaz (1974)

But this court vacated the bankruptcy court’s judgment because the bankruptcy court did not have authority to enter a final judgment on a “non-core” bankruptcy bankruptcy.” Lisa’s bankruptcy plan was confirmed in 2008, and the bankruptcy case was closed in 2012.

Gulf Water Benefaction Company, Peoples National Utility Company v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas and the State of Texas , 674 F.2d 462 (1982)

(Bankruptcy Court's Order entered in Bankruptcy No. (Bankruptcy Court's Order in Bankruptcy No. HB-79-95 Adversary G filed May 19, 1980). party to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Cengiz-Comu-V-King-Louie-Mining-Llc , ca5 cengiz-comu-v-king-louie-mining-llc (1977)

Comu now likewise asks our court to set aside the bankruptcy court’s order revoking his bankruptcy discharge. bankruptcy filings. to the bankruptcy estate.

Robert Sigillito v. Jerry Hollander, Jr., e , robert-sigillito-v-jerry-hollander-jr-e (2011)

Because we agree that the bankruptcy court applied the incorrect burden of proof to its determination of fraud, we REVERSE the bankruptcy court’s judgment The bankruptcy court then turned to the question of whether the Sigillitos’ claims should be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy. They primarily took issue with the bankruptcy court’s distinction between fraud and false pretenses, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s finding as to

Johnston v. United States (IRS) , johnston-v-united-states-irs (1997)

court’s order granting the IRS’ motion to dismiss their Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition2 and (b) the bankruptcy court’s refusals to reopen the bankruptcy As such, the appeals period for challenging the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of appellants’ bankruptcy petition on any other grounds expired on July 3, and the denials of their post-judgment motions.9 Merits of Bankruptcy Court’s Dismissal of Bankruptcy Petition and Denial of Post-Judgment Motions

Alfred-Galaz-V-Lisa-Katona , ca5 alfred-galaz-v-lisa-katona (1995)

His arguments rest primarily on the fact that the bankruptcy court closed Katona’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2012. being administered in bankruptcy.” the Bankruptcy Code are fully vindicated.”

John Villegas v. Texas State Bank , john-villegas-v-texas-state-bank (2010)

We hold that Villegas impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court’s entry of final judgment by failing to object to the bankruptcy court’s exercise of TSB removed the action to bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy court declined BFG’s request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the foreclosures. We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusion that a proceeding is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).1 Bankruptcy courts exercise jurisdiction in

In Re Wilborn , 609 F.3d 748 (2010)

A bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction is limited. to be before a single bankruptcy judge. bankruptcy cases must be adjudicated by a single bankruptcy judge to whom the case has been referred.

Lifemark Hosp of LA v. Liljeberg Ent Inc , 177 F.3d 977 (1999)

In September 1996, Lifemark filed a Motion to Dismiss LEI’s bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court denied this motion in March 1997. The bankruptcy court denied approval of Lifemark’s disclosure statement in June 1997. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s approval of LEI’s plan, holding that the bankruptcy court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

Southmark v. Coopers & Lybrand , 163 F.3d 925 (1999)

judges under the 1978 Bankruptcy Code. are an integral part of the bankruptcy case. The fee award was both approved by the bankruptcy court and subjected to the bankruptcy court’s later disgorgement order.

Ins Co of N Amer v. NGC Settlement Trust , ins-co-of-n-amer-v-ngc-settlement-trust (1997)

that the Bankruptcy Court had discretion to refuse to order arbitration of core bankruptcy matters. in a bankruptcy forum”); cf. In the bankruptcy context, however, efficient resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy

In the Matter Of: National Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation Aancor Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Debtors. Insurance Company of North America v. Ngc Settlement Trust & Asbestos Claims Management Corporation , 118 F.3d 1056 (1997)

that the Bankruptcy Court had discretion to refuse to order arbitration of core bankruptcy matters. courts under the Bankruptcy Code.") In the bankruptcy context, however, efficient resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy

16 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1327, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,842 in Re Shearn Moody, Jr., Debtor. W. Steve Smith, Trustee of the Estate of Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Norman D. Revie , 817 F.2d 365 (1987)

As pointed out in Collier on Bankruptcy, "[i]n considering the finality of orders entered by bankruptcy judges, some courts begin their analysis by stating Everything that occurs in the bankruptcy court between these two events is treated as "a proceeding arising in or related to" the bankruptcy case. a "proceeding" within a bankruptcy case is the relevant "judicial unit" for purposes of finality.9 The court reviewed a bankruptcy court order granting

In the Matter of Douglas Oesterle, Bankrupt. The Home Indemnity Company and the National Indemnity Company v. Douglas W. Oesterle , 651 F.2d 401 (1981)

Recognizing the wide discretion conferred by the Bankruptcy Act upon a bankruptcy judge, and finding in the record no abuse of this discretion, we affirm Compare Bankruptcy Rule of Procedure 407 (one objecting to discharge "has the burden of proving the facts essential to his objection") with Bankruptcy Under Rule of Bankruptcy 407, one objecting to a discharge in bankruptcy "has the burden of proving the facts essential to his objection."

Double J Oprt Co Inc v. Nichols , double-j-oprt-co-inc-v-nichols (2002)

Bankruptcy Procedure 2010(b). the debtor’s motion to reopen its bankruptcy case. or discuss factors often considered with motions to reopen.4 Indeed, the bankruptcy court was not 2 Although the bankruptcy

TX Health Ent Inc v. Lytle Nursing Home , tx-health-ent-inc-v-lytle-nursing-home (2003)

PER CURIAM:* Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. and the Trustee of the bankruptcy estate appeal the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion to assume They argue that: (1) the bankruptcy court erred in denying their motion to assume the Management Contract; and (2) the bankruptcy court erred in granting , the bankruptcy code makes it clear that it is the choice of the debtor-in-possession, and not the bankruptcy court, to assume or reject an executory

Gandy v. Gandy , gandy-v-gandy (2002)

These claims are created by the Bankruptcy Code and are not—outside of bankruptcy—available to Debtor. of the Bankruptcy Code. resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy Code).

In the Matter Of: Sarma Gandy, Debtor. James Gandy, Kartar Gandy, Hary Gandy Limited Partnership, Signtech Usa, Ltd., Kartar Gandy Limited Partnership, and Hary Gandy v. Sarma Gandy , 299 F.3d 489 (2002)

a bankruptcy court to enforce its own orders." These claims are created by the Bankruptcy Code and are not — outside of bankruptcy — available to Debtor. resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy Code).

Thomas-Mcbride-V-Sharon-Riley , ca5 thomas-mcbride-v-sharon-riley (2001)

As support, the bankruptcy court cited an opinion from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The bankruptcy court observed that Bankruptcy Rule 1006(b)(2) gives bankruptcy courts discretion on whether to allow those installment payments—which, would “eviscerate” the bankruptcy courts’ discretion under Bankruptcy Rule 1006(b).

Rodriguez v. EMC Mortgage Corp , rodriguez-v-emc-mortgage-corp (2001)

At the request of EMC, the bankruptcy court reopened the Rodriguez bankruptcy proceeding on May 14, 1999, which it had closed on February 2, 1999. court and the bankruptcy court for clear error. The decision to reopen a bankruptcy proceeding for “cause” is within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court.

In the Matter of Atlas Supply Corporation, Debtor. Gail Lee Peterson v. Atlas Supply Corporation , 857 F.2d 1061 (1988)

In June 1984, the bankruptcy court denied this motion. II 10 Peterson moved to dismiss the bankruptcy petition under section 707(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. lies within the discretion of the bankruptcy judge.

In the Matter of P.T. Eichelberger, Jr., M.D., and Louis B. Hughes, Debtors. Douglas Aycock v. Wentworth G. Eaton, M.D. , 943 F.2d 536 (1991)

Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) then establishes the "[computation of] any period of time allowed by [the bankruptcy] rules...." Rules make a civil rule applicable to a bankruptcy case or proceeding. 19 Bankruptcy Code, Rules and Forms: Interim Supplement appellate jurisdiction in a bankruptcy case.

In the Matter of Mike Abraham, Bankrupt. Joseph R. Abraham, L. W. Tate, and Thomas R. Hartnett, III v. William J. Rochelle, Jr., Trustee , 421 F.2d 226 (1970)

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge: 1 The Referee in Bankruptcy authorized and directed the trustee in bankruptcy to sell seventeen vacant urban Court from jurisdiction over them or to prevent the Bankruptcy Court from determining its own jurisdiction. 4 Where the bankruptcy , into the custody of the bankruptcy court.

16 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1263, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,813 in the Matter of William S. Chaffin, Debtor. Appeal of William S. Chaffin , 816 F.2d 1070 (1987)

receiving a discharge in a previous bankruptcy proceeding conducted under the now-repealed Bankruptcy Act of 1898 seeks discharge of a debt that had been Chaffin had been in bankruptcy since 1979, when his creditors had filed an involuntary petition under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. dischargeable in a subsequent bankruptcy case.

Reyna v. Monroe , reyna-v-monroe (2008)

’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy. No. 07-51070 original civil action, not an appeal of his bankruptcy; and the bankruptcy judge should not have been dismissed as a party. For a bankruptcy appeal, the bankruptcy judge was not treated as a party.

Friendly Fin Svc v. Williams , friendly-fin-svc-v-williams (2007)

the bankruptcy case that same day. bankruptcy court dismissed Williams from the bankruptcy case. innocent spouse in bankruptcy. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 524.02[3] at 524-28 (15th ed. 1996).

In Re: Cueva , in-re-cueva (2004)

On December 7, 1999, Cueva’s bankruptcy attorney faxed a notice of the bankruptcy to Appellee - Cross-Appellant Settle & Pou, which received the notice of the bankruptcy court. Because the district court reversed part of the bankruptcy court’s judgment, it remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for further

Krim v. First City Bancorp , krim-v-first-city-bancorp (2002)

bankruptcy court -- are the following: ! and an affront to [the bankruptcy court] and the parties and practitioners who have appeared in this bankruptcy that should not have to be endured in Accordingly, the bankruptcy court imposed a monetary sanction of $22,500 and barred Greenfield from practicing in the bankruptcy courts of the Northern

Bass v. Denney , 171 F.3d 1016 (1999)

it hears an appeal from bankruptcy court.8 Thus, we review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear The proceeding must be capable of affecting the bankruptcy estate for it to be “related to” the bankruptcy. “relates to” the bankruptcy,36 the Denneys insist that their action is within the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

The State of Texas v. Wellington Resources Corp. And Whitehall Mining Co., Inc. , 706 F.2d 533 (1983)

Code. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, p 541.02 (15 Ed.1979); See: H.R.Rep. Sec. 541; Rule 701 of the Bankruptcy Rules. See also 11 U.S.C. Eskenaz, 704 F.2d 241, 245 (5th Cir.1983) (bankruptcy court's factfinding in discharge of debt by debtor in bankruptcy court determined to have collateral

Opinion

Schreiber v. US Bankruptcy Court , schreiber-v-us-bankruptcy-court (2000)

PER CURIAM:* Harry Schreiber appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s refusal to reopen his chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding For example, the bankruptcy court noted, perceptively, that Schreiber seemed to be requesting to be bonded out of federal prison. The judgment of the district court, affirming the bankruptcy court, is AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR.

Reiners v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court , 885 F.2d 868 (1989)

Bankruptcy Court* NO. 89-4249 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

Ballard v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court , 784 F.2d 1113 (1986)

Bankruptcy Court 85-4501 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. 2/24/86 S.D.Miss., 782 F.2d 1038

Ballard v. U.S. Bankruptcy Ct , 782 F.2d 1038 (1986)

Bankruptcy Ct. 85-4501 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. 1/22/86 1 S.D.Miss.

Anti Lothian Bankruptcy Fraud v. Lothian Oi , anti-lothian-bankruptcy-fraud-v-lothian-oi (2013)

On June 13, 2007, Lothian filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy plan was confirmed on June 27, 2008. STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing a bankruptcy appeal from the district court, this court applies “the same standard to the bankruptcy court’s findings

Cooper Petroleum Company v. Henry Hart, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. Bk-1-37, Henry Hart, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. Bk-1-37 v. Cooper Petroleum Company , 379 F.2d 777 (1967)

379 F.2d 777 COOPER PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellant,v.Henry HART, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. BK-1-37, Appellee.Henry HART, Trustee in Bankruptcy of International Marketing, Inc., Bankruptcy No. Bankruptcy Act § 60(b), 11 U.S.C. § 96(b).

Bankr. L. Rep. P 67,015 in Re Davis Transport & Rentals, Inc., Bankrupt. Virginia Hicklin Taylor v. J. C. Van Voorhis, Trustee , 585 F.2d 743 (1978)

Meanwhile, in the straight bankruptcy proceeding that had been initiated on January 3, the bankruptcy judge entered an adjudication of bankruptcy, dated The bankruptcy judge in the straight bankruptcy proceeding determined the date of bankruptcy as February 11, 1974, the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy bankruptcy petition was filed.

Matter of Querner , matter-of-querner (1993)

s bankruptcy estate.1 In January 1990, the bankruptcy court confirmed a Chapter 13 Plan. Rule 1016 gives a bankruptcy court discretion to dismiss or continue a bankruptcy case after the death of a debtor. Although the bankruptcy court was familiar with the assets of the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy judge had no special knowledge regarding the disputes

30 Collier bankr.cas.2d 231, Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,619 in the Matter of Jimmie L. Querner, Sr., Debtor. Thera Querner v. Jimmie L. Querner, Jr. , 7 F.3d 1199 (1993)

s bankruptcy estate.1 In January 1990, the bankruptcy court confirmed a Chapter 13 Plan. Although the bankruptcy court was familiar with the assets of the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy judge had no special knowledge regarding the disputes bankruptcy case.

Casey , casey (2003)

certain conduct of “bankruptcy petition preparers.” The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order. Trustee the names of any clients “to whom blank bankruptcy petition forms have been provided for the purpose of filing pro se bankruptcy cases.”

In the Matter of Glenn D. Lee, Debtors. Dougal C. Pope v. Gary J. Knostman, Trustee , 884 F.2d 897 (1989)

Sec. 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2017. Sec. 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2017. Sec. 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2017, and not because it was preferential under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547. Bankruptcy Rule 2017 and 11 U.S.C.

In Re Yorkshire, LLC , 540 F.3d 328 (2008)

two bankruptcy petitions in bad faith; and second, whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in the amount of sanctions it imposed. First, Appellants contend that the Bankruptcy Court erred in holding that the reason they asserted for filing for bankruptcy was illegitimate. and Knight had legal authority to file for bankruptcy))we would not disturb the Bankruptcy Court’s decision.

In Re Yorkshire, LLC , 540 F.3d 328 (2008)

filing two bankruptcy petitions in bad faith; and second, whether the Bankruptcy Court 1 Knight later admitted the Luedtkes First, Appellants contend that the Bankruptcy Court erred in holding that the reason they asserted for filing for bankruptcy was illegitimate. and Knight had legal authority to file for bankruptcy))we would not disturb the Bankruptcy Court’s decision.

Pickle v. Greenstein , 149 F.3d 1174 (1998)

the judgment of the bankruptcy court. The same rule applies in bankruptcy appeals. A district court’s ruling on a bankruptcy court’s interlocutory order may leave nothing for the bankruptcy court to do, and thus transform the bankruptcy

In the Matter of Brints Cotton Marketing, Inc., Debtor. Mike Addison v. David R. Langston, Trustee , 737 F.2d 1338 (1984)

with" in the bankruptcy proceeding. ) of the Bankruptcy Act, the predecessor section of section 502(c) of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978). that might have accrued to them absent bankruptcy.

In Re Harolyn Anderson, Debtor. Richard M. Anderson, Cross-Appellee v. Harolyn Anderson, Cross-Appellant, and John F. Bufe, Trustee , 936 F.2d 199 (1991)

Richard asserts that he became aware of that payment's origin at a later hearing in the bankruptcy court. 5 The bankruptcy court Sec. 303(h)(1), the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction ab initio and thus ultimately did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the bankruptcy or The Bankruptcy Court's Determinations. 17 The bankruptcy court found that Richard violated Sec. 329 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule

In Re Skuna River Lumber, LLC , 564 F.3d 353 (2009)

had previously purchased at a bankruptcy court ordered auction sale by a credit bid from the bankruptcy estate of its debtor, appellee Skuna River Lumber The bankruptcy court in its September 22, 2006 order surcharged the “assets of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate” purportedly pursuant to section 506(c) of Skuna acknowledges the general rule that a bankruptcy court loses jurisdiction over assets once they are transferred from the bankruptcy estate.

McCloy v. Silverthorne , 296 F.3d 370 (2002)

being administered in bankruptcy." This lease was entered into during the bankruptcy proceedings, and the bankruptcy court characterized it as “peculiar.” Under the bankruptcy code, an involuntary bankruptcy petition cannot be brought against a farmer. 11 U.S.C. § 303(a).

Raul-Galaz-V-Lisa-Galaz , ca5 raul-galaz-v-lisa-galaz (1974)

But this court vacated the bankruptcy court’s judgment because the bankruptcy court did not have authority to enter a final judgment on a “non-core” bankruptcy bankruptcy.” Lisa’s bankruptcy plan was confirmed in 2008, and the bankruptcy case was closed in 2012.

Gulf Water Benefaction Company, Peoples National Utility Company v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas and the State of Texas , 674 F.2d 462 (1982)

(Bankruptcy Court's Order entered in Bankruptcy No. (Bankruptcy Court's Order in Bankruptcy No. HB-79-95 Adversary G filed May 19, 1980). party to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Cengiz-Comu-V-King-Louie-Mining-Llc , ca5 cengiz-comu-v-king-louie-mining-llc (1977)

Comu now likewise asks our court to set aside the bankruptcy court’s order revoking his bankruptcy discharge. bankruptcy filings. to the bankruptcy estate.

Robert Sigillito v. Jerry Hollander, Jr., e , robert-sigillito-v-jerry-hollander-jr-e (2011)

Because we agree that the bankruptcy court applied the incorrect burden of proof to its determination of fraud, we REVERSE the bankruptcy court’s judgment The bankruptcy court then turned to the question of whether the Sigillitos’ claims should be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy. They primarily took issue with the bankruptcy court’s distinction between fraud and false pretenses, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s finding as to

Johnston v. United States (IRS) , johnston-v-united-states-irs (1997)

court’s order granting the IRS’ motion to dismiss their Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition2 and (b) the bankruptcy court’s refusals to reopen the bankruptcy As such, the appeals period for challenging the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of appellants’ bankruptcy petition on any other grounds expired on July 3, and the denials of their post-judgment motions.9 Merits of Bankruptcy Court’s Dismissal of Bankruptcy Petition and Denial of Post-Judgment Motions

Alfred-Galaz-V-Lisa-Katona , ca5 alfred-galaz-v-lisa-katona (1995)

His arguments rest primarily on the fact that the bankruptcy court closed Katona’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2012. being administered in bankruptcy.” the Bankruptcy Code are fully vindicated.”

John Villegas v. Texas State Bank , john-villegas-v-texas-state-bank (2010)

We hold that Villegas impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court’s entry of final judgment by failing to object to the bankruptcy court’s exercise of TSB removed the action to bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy court declined BFG’s request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the foreclosures. We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusion that a proceeding is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).1 Bankruptcy courts exercise jurisdiction in

In Re Wilborn , 609 F.3d 748 (2010)

A bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction is limited. to be before a single bankruptcy judge. bankruptcy cases must be adjudicated by a single bankruptcy judge to whom the case has been referred.

Lifemark Hosp of LA v. Liljeberg Ent Inc , 177 F.3d 977 (1999)

In September 1996, Lifemark filed a Motion to Dismiss LEI’s bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court denied this motion in March 1997. The bankruptcy court denied approval of Lifemark’s disclosure statement in June 1997. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s approval of LEI’s plan, holding that the bankruptcy court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

Southmark v. Coopers & Lybrand , 163 F.3d 925 (1999)

judges under the 1978 Bankruptcy Code. are an integral part of the bankruptcy case. The fee award was both approved by the bankruptcy court and subjected to the bankruptcy court’s later disgorgement order.

Ins Co of N Amer v. NGC Settlement Trust , ins-co-of-n-amer-v-ngc-settlement-trust (1997)

that the Bankruptcy Court had discretion to refuse to order arbitration of core bankruptcy matters. in a bankruptcy forum”); cf. In the bankruptcy context, however, efficient resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy

In the Matter Of: National Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation Aancor Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Debtors. Insurance Company of North America v. Ngc Settlement Trust & Asbestos Claims Management Corporation , 118 F.3d 1056 (1997)

that the Bankruptcy Court had discretion to refuse to order arbitration of core bankruptcy matters. courts under the Bankruptcy Code.") In the bankruptcy context, however, efficient resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy

16 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1327, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,842 in Re Shearn Moody, Jr., Debtor. W. Steve Smith, Trustee of the Estate of Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Norman D. Revie , 817 F.2d 365 (1987)

As pointed out in Collier on Bankruptcy, "[i]n considering the finality of orders entered by bankruptcy judges, some courts begin their analysis by stating Everything that occurs in the bankruptcy court between these two events is treated as "a proceeding arising in or related to" the bankruptcy case. a "proceeding" within a bankruptcy case is the relevant "judicial unit" for purposes of finality.9 The court reviewed a bankruptcy court order granting

In the Matter of Douglas Oesterle, Bankrupt. The Home Indemnity Company and the National Indemnity Company v. Douglas W. Oesterle , 651 F.2d 401 (1981)

Recognizing the wide discretion conferred by the Bankruptcy Act upon a bankruptcy judge, and finding in the record no abuse of this discretion, we affirm Compare Bankruptcy Rule of Procedure 407 (one objecting to discharge "has the burden of proving the facts essential to his objection") with Bankruptcy Under Rule of Bankruptcy 407, one objecting to a discharge in bankruptcy "has the burden of proving the facts essential to his objection."

Double J Oprt Co Inc v. Nichols , double-j-oprt-co-inc-v-nichols (2002)

Bankruptcy Procedure 2010(b). the debtor’s motion to reopen its bankruptcy case. or discuss factors often considered with motions to reopen.4 Indeed, the bankruptcy court was not 2 Although the bankruptcy

TX Health Ent Inc v. Lytle Nursing Home , tx-health-ent-inc-v-lytle-nursing-home (2003)

PER CURIAM:* Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. and the Trustee of the bankruptcy estate appeal the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion to assume They argue that: (1) the bankruptcy court erred in denying their motion to assume the Management Contract; and (2) the bankruptcy court erred in granting , the bankruptcy code makes it clear that it is the choice of the debtor-in-possession, and not the bankruptcy court, to assume or reject an executory

Gandy v. Gandy , gandy-v-gandy (2002)

These claims are created by the Bankruptcy Code and are not—outside of bankruptcy—available to Debtor. of the Bankruptcy Code. resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy Code).

In the Matter Of: Sarma Gandy, Debtor. James Gandy, Kartar Gandy, Hary Gandy Limited Partnership, Signtech Usa, Ltd., Kartar Gandy Limited Partnership, and Hary Gandy v. Sarma Gandy , 299 F.3d 489 (2002)

a bankruptcy court to enforce its own orders." These claims are created by the Bankruptcy Code and are not — outside of bankruptcy — available to Debtor. resolution of claims and conservation of the bankruptcy estate assets are integral purposes of the Bankruptcy Code).

Thomas-Mcbride-V-Sharon-Riley , ca5 thomas-mcbride-v-sharon-riley (2001)

As support, the bankruptcy court cited an opinion from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The bankruptcy court observed that Bankruptcy Rule 1006(b)(2) gives bankruptcy courts discretion on whether to allow those installment payments—which, would “eviscerate” the bankruptcy courts’ discretion under Bankruptcy Rule 1006(b).

Rodriguez v. EMC Mortgage Corp , rodriguez-v-emc-mortgage-corp (2001)

At the request of EMC, the bankruptcy court reopened the Rodriguez bankruptcy proceeding on May 14, 1999, which it had closed on February 2, 1999. court and the bankruptcy court for clear error. The decision to reopen a bankruptcy proceeding for “cause” is within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court.

In the Matter of Atlas Supply Corporation, Debtor. Gail Lee Peterson v. Atlas Supply Corporation , 857 F.2d 1061 (1988)

In June 1984, the bankruptcy court denied this motion. II 10 Peterson moved to dismiss the bankruptcy petition under section 707(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. lies within the discretion of the bankruptcy judge.

In the Matter of P.T. Eichelberger, Jr., M.D., and Louis B. Hughes, Debtors. Douglas Aycock v. Wentworth G. Eaton, M.D. , 943 F.2d 536 (1991)

Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) then establishes the "[computation of] any period of time allowed by [the bankruptcy] rules...." Rules make a civil rule applicable to a bankruptcy case or proceeding. 19 Bankruptcy Code, Rules and Forms: Interim Supplement appellate jurisdiction in a bankruptcy case.

In the Matter of Mike Abraham, Bankrupt. Joseph R. Abraham, L. W. Tate, and Thomas R. Hartnett, III v. William J. Rochelle, Jr., Trustee , 421 F.2d 226 (1970)

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge: 1 The Referee in Bankruptcy authorized and directed the trustee in bankruptcy to sell seventeen vacant urban Court from jurisdiction over them or to prevent the Bankruptcy Court from determining its own jurisdiction. 4 Where the bankruptcy , into the custody of the bankruptcy court.

16 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1263, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,813 in the Matter of William S. Chaffin, Debtor. Appeal of William S. Chaffin , 816 F.2d 1070 (1987)

receiving a discharge in a previous bankruptcy proceeding conducted under the now-repealed Bankruptcy Act of 1898 seeks discharge of a debt that had been Chaffin had been in bankruptcy since 1979, when his creditors had filed an involuntary petition under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. dischargeable in a subsequent bankruptcy case.

Reyna v. Monroe , reyna-v-monroe (2008)

’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy. No. 07-51070 original civil action, not an appeal of his bankruptcy; and the bankruptcy judge should not have been dismissed as a party. For a bankruptcy appeal, the bankruptcy judge was not treated as a party.

Friendly Fin Svc v. Williams , friendly-fin-svc-v-williams (2007)

the bankruptcy case that same day. bankruptcy court dismissed Williams from the bankruptcy case. innocent spouse in bankruptcy. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 524.02[3] at 524-28 (15th ed. 1996).

In Re: Cueva , in-re-cueva (2004)

On December 7, 1999, Cueva’s bankruptcy attorney faxed a notice of the bankruptcy to Appellee - Cross-Appellant Settle & Pou, which received the notice of the bankruptcy court. Because the district court reversed part of the bankruptcy court’s judgment, it remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for further

Krim v. First City Bancorp , krim-v-first-city-bancorp (2002)

bankruptcy court -- are the following: ! and an affront to [the bankruptcy court] and the parties and practitioners who have appeared in this bankruptcy that should not have to be endured in Accordingly, the bankruptcy court imposed a monetary sanction of $22,500 and barred Greenfield from practicing in the bankruptcy courts of the Northern

Bass v. Denney , 171 F.3d 1016 (1999)

it hears an appeal from bankruptcy court.8 Thus, we review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear The proceeding must be capable of affecting the bankruptcy estate for it to be “related to” the bankruptcy. “relates to” the bankruptcy,36 the Denneys insist that their action is within the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

The State of Texas v. Wellington Resources Corp. And Whitehall Mining Co., Inc. , 706 F.2d 533 (1983)

Code. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, p 541.02 (15 Ed.1979); See: H.R.Rep. Sec. 541; Rule 701 of the Bankruptcy Rules. See also 11 U.S.C. Eskenaz, 704 F.2d 241, 245 (5th Cir.1983) (bankruptcy court's factfinding in discharge of debt by debtor in bankruptcy court determined to have collateral