366 search results for query *

Summary: 353 B.R. 564 (2006) In re Lyndon Walter GRYDZUK and Lisa Kathleen Grydzuk, Debtors. The Motion, filed on August 2, 2006 by the Chapter 13 Trustee, came before the *566 Court for hearing on August 28, 2006. The pertinent provision of the Bankruptcy Code — 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(1) — inserted into the law by the BAPCPA states: (f) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the court shall not grant a discharge of all debts provided for in the plan or disallowed under section 502, if the debtor has more.

Summary: 135 B.R. 564 (1991) In re CURRY PRINTERS, INC., Debtor. By Order of this Court date April 9, 1991, Curry Printers, Inc., (hereinafter: "Debtor") was given 15 days to file a response or answer to said motion, and upon so doing the EKC was granted 7 days to file a reply thereto. The Debtor then filed an Answer Brief in opposition to EKC's Motion on May 28, 1991. On or about November 24, 1987, Curry Printers, Inc. ("Curry"), entered into a rental agreement with EKC for the rental of a Kodak more.

Summary: 144 B.R. 80 (1992) In the Matter of Joseph Clifford GRAHAM & Wilma Louise Graham Debtors. Compare In re Hougland, 93 B.R. 718, 720-21 (D.D.Ore.1988) aff'd 886 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir.1989); In re Ireland, 137 B.R. 65, 70-71 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1992) (fixtures, credit life, and disability policies were not other collateral); Matter of Moreland, 124 B.R. 921, 922 (Bankr.D.Conn. 1991) (rents, royalties, gas rights, etc. were not other collateral); In re Wright, 128 B.R. 838, 843 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1991) ( more.

Summary: 178 B.R. 767 (1994) In re Ervin STAGGS, Debtor. James FORRESTER, Rachel L. Forrester, Plaintiffs, v. Ervin STAGGS, Defendant. On July 3, 1986, the defendant/debtor, Ervin Staggs, was involved in a bar fight with the plaintiff, James Forrester, at the Red Apple Inn in Marion, Indiana. On September 1, 1992, the Circuit Court found that "there [was] no genuine issue of material fact and that Defendant Ervin Staggs committed battery upon Plaintiff and that as a result of that battery Plaintiff more.

Summary: 115 B.R. 164 (1989) In the Matter of SPECIALTY CARTAGE, INC., Debtor. It is currently before the court on Debtor's objection to the claim filed on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Given the value of Debtor's assets and amounts due on account of liens which are superior the IRS, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) its secured claim is only $72,615.74. Because of this, the court must determine which of the liabilities in question are secured by tax liens and which of those liabilities more.

Summary: 65 B.R. 105 (1986) In the Matter of Jeffrey Earl BURDICK, Sr., Wanda Burdick f/d/b/a/ Busy B. Dairy Farms, Busy B. Farms, Debtors. J. Richard COFFING and Gladys Coffing, Plaintiffs, v. Jeffrey Earl BURDICK, Sr., and Wanda Burdick, Defendants. This matter is brought before the court on the Complaint to Determine dischargeability of Debt filed by J. Richard Coffing and Gladys M. Coffing (Plaintiffs) on February 11, 1982. BACKGROUND In September of 1979, Jeffrey Burdick (Defendant) desired to more.

Summary: 200 B.R. 636 (1996) In re N. Randall SIEGER, Debtor. Ralph H. EDWARDS, Jr., Plaintiff, v. N. Randall SIEGER, Defendant. On its own motion, the court raised the issue of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings to collect a non-dischargeable money judgment entered against a bankruptcy debtor. Many of the court's concerns about its subject matter jurisdiction are explained in a decision issued on January 5, 1996 in adversary proceeding No. 88-1084, R. David Boyer, Trustee v. more.

Summary: 115 B.R. 169 (1990) In the Matter of Adalberto GARCIA, Debtor. This matter is now before the court on two motions filed on behalf of the debtor on January 22, 1990.

Summary: 330 B.R. 709 (2004) In re CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES CORP., Debtor. In that litigation, Enodis Corporation, the debtor's former parent, sought a declaration concerning its right to cancel liability insurance it had previously acquired for the debtor.

Summary: 70 B.R. 543 (1987) In the Matter of The COMMODORE CORPORATION, Commodore Home Systems, Inc., Debtors. The matter comes before the court on (1) a Motion to Revoke Fee Orders of Lord, Bissell & Brook and (2) an Objection to a Stipulation, filed by Edgar F. Heizer; and a Motion to Strike pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9018 requested by Lord, Bissell & Brook. [4] There are very few published opinions construing section 107[5] and of these only two address 107(b)(2): Matter of Hope in behalf of Clark more.

Summary: 387 B.R. 219 (2008) Paul Edward EISAMAN, Jennifer Lynn Eisaman, Debtors S & L Enterprises I, LLC, Plaintiff v. Paul Edward Eisaman, Jr., Defendant. By this adversary proceeding, the plaintiff has asked the court to declare that Paul Eisaman's obligation to it is non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff made various loans to Eisaman Real Estate, Inc. with the understanding that the loan proceeds would be used to acquire more.

Summary: 429 B.R. 637 (2010) In re KRAFT, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Debtor. Kraft, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. Charles R. Greiner, Dennis Churilla, Jeffrey D. Greiner, Louis Gerodemos, Mary Louise Sarey, Robert Heikema, Terry R. Schrefler, Brenda L. Van Zuidam, Defendants. This contested matter/adversary proceeding arises from a complaint filed on April 11, 2008, by Kraft, LLC, against Charles R. Greiner, Dennis Churilla, Jeffrey D. Greiner, Louis Gerodemos, Mary Louise Sarey, more.

Summary: 429 B.R. 241 (2010) In re James Edward LUEDTKE, Debtor. Falk Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Plaintiff, v. James Edward Luedtke, Defendant. This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's, Falk Engineering & Surveying, Inc.'s ("Falk"), complaint to determine the dischargeability of debt filed against the debtor, James Edward Luedtke ("Luedtke"). Falk contends that the exception from discharge allegations pled in the foregoing complaint are subject to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, more.

Summary: 169 B.R. 178 (1993) In the Matter of Evelyn G. ESCOBEDO, Debtor. Debtor opposes the motion, arguing that confirmation is res judicata as to all issues that could have and should have been raised at the confirmation hearing and, since there has been no substantial change in the debtor's circumstances since the date of confirmation, modification is not possible.See also In re Northrup, 141 B.R. 171 (D.N.D.Iowa 1991) (failure of parties holding priority claims to object to plan which provided for more.

Summary: 94 B.R. 557 (1988) In the Matter of Ronald Lee KLINE and Marshal Fay Kline, Debtors. In the Matter of Donald Ray CULY and Nancy Joan Culy, Debtors. Donald M. Aikman, Fort Wayne, Ind., for Kline & Culy. This matter is before the court to consider confirmation of the debtors' Chapter 12 plans, together with objections thereto raised by the Chapter 12 Trustee. NOTES [1] Because of this, cases such as In re Greseth, 78 B.R. 936 (D.Minn.1987); Matter of Logemann, 88 B.R. 938 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa 1988); more.

Summary: 68 B.R. 870 (1987) In re Laura BLACKBURN, Debtor. We hold that, for goods or services purchased on a credit card to be excepted from discharge for fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) when the debtor did not obtain the credit card fraudulently or use the card after being notified of its revocation, the objecting creditor must establish with clear and convincing evidence that the debtor charged the goods or services with no present intention of paying for them. The parties filed a stipulation of facts on more.

Summary: 113 B.R. 487 (1990) In the Matter of U.S. MARKETING CONCEPTS, INC., Debtor. The garnishment proceedings against these two parties were the result of transfers they had received from the debtor, allegedly made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud debtor's creditors. In doing so, Judge Hines found that the garnishee-defendants, Herbert J. Weber and Advertising and Marketing Services, Inc., had received fraudulent transfers from the debtor in amounts which were "far greater" than debtor's more.

Summary: 402 B.R. 851 (2009) In the Matter of David Allen JOHNSON, Debtor. Instead, an individual debtor's plan can be modified any time prior to the completion of payments and modification may be sought, not just by the plan proponent and the reorganized debtor, id., but by the debtor, the trustee, the United States Trustee, or an unsecured creditor. The particular question before it involves closing an individual debtor's Chapter 11 case, subject to reopening, before the debtor has completed the more.

Summary: 396 B.R. 5 (2008) In re David Wayne THOMPSON, Debtor. On September 17, 2008, a hearing was held concerning the Motion for Turnover filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee Stacia L. Yoon ("Trustee") on August 6, 2008, to which the debtor responded by the Debtors' (sic) Objection to Trustee's Motion for Turnover of Economic Stimulus Payment, Including Those Attributable to Non-Debtor Spouse and Children filed on August 25, 2008. The issue to be determined is the extent to which a payment made to the more.

Summary: 6 B.R. 329 (1980) In the Matter of David Loren HURD, Debtor. In determining whether or not to confirm the debtor's plan, this Court must examine the facts of this particular case against the mandates of the Bankruptcy Code Section 1325[1] which provides that: "(a) The Court shall confirm a plan if— (1) the plan complies with the provisions of this chapter and with other applicable provisions of this title; (2) any fee, charge, or amount required under chapter 123 of title 28, or by the plan, to more.