Judge Pamela S. Hollis - Opinions / Outlines
Please note that the decisions listed below are not a complete inventory of all the judge's decisions, that the electronic versions are not documents of record, and that the official records are available at the clerk's office.
|
In re: RONALD WILLIAMS and DANA M. MORGAN-WILLIAMS RONALD WILLIAMS and DANA M. MORGAN-WILLIAMS v. MARILYN 0. MARSHALL, Chapter 13 Trustee Debtors/Plaintiffs filed for relief under Chapter 13 and confirmed their plan. They fell behind on plan payments, attempted to catch up, then voluntarily dismissed their case. The Chapter 13 Trustee was left holding a sum of money at dismissal. Debtors filed an adversary proceeding seeking turnover of the funds. The Chapter 13 Trustee argued that she must distribute the funds to creditors. Debtors filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, since no facts were in dispute. HELD: The funds must be returned to the Debtors. 11 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2), which instructs trustees to distribute certain payments to creditors in accordance with the plan, applies only to preconfirmation payments. Postconfirmation, trustees must make payments under the plan pursuant to 1326(c). At dismissal, however, 349(b)(3) revests property of the estate in the entity in which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case, which in the case of funds paid into the plan, held by the Chapter 13 Trustee and not yet distributed, is the Debtors. Issued: March 13, 2013 |
08 B 31707 11 A 02415 |
|
In re: Jerzy Adas and Teresa Szmacinska-Adas Zenon Rutkowski v. Jerzy Adas Debtor/Defendant had a successful remodeling and construction business. He and Plaintiff, a salaried and less-successful tool and die designer, became close friends. When Plaintiff sold his home and found himself with some extra cash, they agreed to invest in new construction. Defendant chose the location, acted as the general contractor and arranged for construction financing. Plaintiff put up the money and his name alone was on the title and loan. The house was completed just in time for the real estate market to crash. The bank foreclosed and got a deficiency judgment against Plaintiff, who asked Defendant where all the money had gone. Defendant could only account for about three-quarters of the funds. Plaintiff sought a finding that Defendant's debt was nondischargeable under 523(a)(2) and (a)(4). Following a multi-day trial, the parties briefed the issues and Plaintiff dropped the 523(a)(2) count. HELD: The parties had a fiduciary relationship because of the difference in knowledge and power which gave Defendant a position of ascendancy over Plaintiff. The debt was caused by Defendant's defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and is nondischargeable pursuant to 523(a)(4) Issued: March 07, 2013 |
09 B 26595 09 A 01045 |
|
In Re: BACHRACH CLOTHING, INC. BACHRACH CLOTHING, INC. v. EDGAR H. BACHRACH, et al. Private equity fund Sun Capital purchased a 100+ year old family-owned retailer, financed the purchase through an LBO, ended up as the secured lender, and put the company in Chapter 11 less than 18 months later. After Sun obtained a covenant not to be sued, Debtor filed suit against its former shareholders, three siblings. Debtor sought avoidance of the sale and recovery of sale proceeds, alleging that the LBO was a fraudulent conveyance that rendered the Debtor insolvent or undercapitalized. After several days of trial and review of two expert valuation reports as well as thousands of pages of deposition testimony and other exhibits, the court entered judgment for the Defendants. The court declined to collapse the LBO, which would have been enough to end the lawsuit. The court then analyzed the expert reports, determining that it was not the sale that left the company insolvent or undercapitalized. Issued: October 11, 2012 |
08 A 00726 06 B 06525 |
|
In re: Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co. Gregg Szilagyi and Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC Lakewood entered into an agreement to outsource its box fan manufacturing to Chicago American Manufacturing (CAM). The agreement included remedies for CAM if Lakewood failed to purchase the forecasted amounts of box fans within a certain time period. After an involuntary petition was filed against Lakewood, the Trustee rejected the agreement and brought suit against CAM to enjoin further manufacturing as well as selling any of the unpurchased box fans. The court first determined that the agreement was ambiguous, then interpreted the ambiguous provisions using parol evidence, and concluded (among other findings) that CAM's remedies included a license to manufacture and sell box fans using Lakewood's patents and trademarks. Rejection of the agreement did not terminate that license, and all box fans that CAM manufactured and sold were covered by the license granted in the agreement. Judgment for the defendant on all counts. Issued: September 29, 2011 |
09 B 05320 09 A 00341 |
|
In re: Mark M. Han Steven W. Huang and Andrew C. Lee Defendant brought a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' adversary complaint which sought to except certain debts from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), & (a)(6). Defendant sought a determination that Plaintiffs' complaint was barred by res judicata because of a prior action brought in state court. The court ruled that Plaintiffs were judicially estopped from denying a final judgment had been entered in the state court as Plaintiffs had engaged in supplementary proceedings, treating the judgment as final. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant on Counts I and II. Defendant did not succeed on Count III because Plaintiffs did receive a judgment which could support a willful and malicious injury. Issued: July 21, 2011 |
10 B 33523 11 A 00697 |
|
In re: Highlands of Montour Run, LLC
Creditor objected to approval of disclosure statement where plan contemplated using rents from apartment complex after the automatic stay had been lifted with respect to the apartment complex and creditor had asserted its right to take possession of the apartment complex and the rents. Creditor’s objection was sustained on the basis that the rents were no longer property of the estate. Issued: June 08, 2011 |
10 B 21678 |
|
In re National Jockey Club DII Northwest LLC v. Thomas Carey, I Defendant brought motion to dismiss complaint alleging turnover and breach of fiduciary claims. Defendant’s motion was granted on both counts. Plaintiff failed to allege a basis upon which certain funds were property of the estate, necessitating dismissal of turnover claim. Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary claim was barred by the statute of limitations as it was not brought within five years of the date the claim arose and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply. Issued: March 03, 2011 |
06 B 13247 06 B 13247 |
|
In re: Willie J. and Peggy A. Jones
Debtor filed a motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) against secured creditor who refused to accept Chapter 13 plan payments for certain pawned property provided for in the confirmed plan. Debtor sought creditor’s compliance with the plan or, alternatively, damages. Secured creditor responded with a motion to amend the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 9024 (incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60), stating that the plan had been confirmed in error because the debtor no longer had an interest in certain pawned property because of a failure to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(8). The creditor’s motion was denied as the creditor did not have standing under § 1329 and its argument under § 362(d) was barred by res judicata since creditor failed to allege that it had not been provided with notice of the bankruptcy or the plan. The creditor’s Rule 60 arguments were similarly denied as these circumstances were not so exceptional as to warrant relief from judgment post-confirmation. Issued: February 24, 2011 |
10 B 04352 |
|
In re: Willie J. and Peggy A. Jones
Debtor filed a motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) against secured creditor who refused to accept Chapter 13 plan payments for certain pawned property provided for in the confirmed plan. Debtor sought creditor’s compliance with the plan or, alternatively, damages. Secured creditor responded with a motion to amend the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 9024 (incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60), stating that the plan had been confirmed in error because the debtor no longer had an interest in certain pawned property because of a failure to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(8). The creditor’s motion was denied for lack of standing, res judicata, and because exceptional circumstances did not exist. As there was no reason for the court to believe the creditor was not bound by the terms of the Plan, the debtor’s motion was granted. Issued: February 24, 2011 |
10 B 04352 |
|
In re Phillip and Diana Rae Mader
Debtors objected to IRS proof of claim which asserted a claim based on taxes against them individually and taxes against husband's business, a corporation which had been involuntarily dissolved. Debtors claimed the IRS could not assess the business taxes against them individually because the statute of limitations had expired. The court held that the IRS could not hold the debtors responsible for corporate taxes since no corporation existed at the time, but that debtors were liable as individuals for the taxes since husband was an "employer" under the tax code. Moreover, since debtors had never included income from the operation of husband's business, the statute of limitations period had not begun to run because debtors had not filed sufficient information to constitute a "tax return." Debtors' objection to the entire proof of claim was sustained because the proof of claim did not accurately reflect debtors' tax liability. Issued: February 10, 2011 |
07 B 15979 |
|
In re Erie Playce LLC
Creditor in a single asset real estate case obtained a prepetition state court judgment against Debtor with a judgment interest rate of 9%. As a single asset real estate debtor, Debtor was required to commence monthly payments to Creditor in an amount equal to “interest at the then applicable nondefault contract rate of interest on the value of the creditor’s interest” in the collateral. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(3)(B)(ii). The mortgage between Creditor and Debtor specified a nondefault contract rate of interest of 5.990%. Creditor argued that the judgment replaced the contract, making 9% the only applicable interest rate. Furthermore, Creditor argued that the payments must first be applied to interest, even though Creditor was undersecured. The court held that the judgment interest rate does not replace the nondefault contract rate of interest for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(3)(B)(ii) and that the payments applied to principal because Creditor was undersecured. Issued: December 07, 2010 |
10 B 22637 |
|
In re William N. Porayko Travis Crowell v. William N. Porayko Creditor obtained a prepetition judgment and served a citation to discover assets on Debtor. While the Citation was in effect, Debtor disposed of certain funds from his bank account for ordinary living expenses. Debtor asserted an exemption in his bank account. Creditor claimed his debt was excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) for willfully and maliciously damaging Creditor’s property interest by spending funds in violation of the Citation and objected to Debtor’s claim of exemption because Debtor had exhausted his exemption with respect to Creditor by spending funds prepetition. The court held that there was no evidence Debtor consciously intended to violate the Citation, given its complexity and the fact that Creditor was aware Debtor had been spending funds and failed to object. The court further held that Debtor did not exhaust his exemption by spending funds prepetition as state exemptions and bankruptcy exemptions serve different purposes and Creditor’s debt did not fall within a creditor-specific exception to Debtor’s exemption. Issued: December 07, 2010 |
09 B 29262 09 A 1132 |
|
In re: William N. Porayko
Creditor obtained a prepetition judgment and served a citation to discover assets on Debtor outside the preference period. Less than 90 days prior to Debtor's bankruptcy case filing, Creditor served a third party citation on Debtor's bank. After Debtor filed his bankruptcy case, Creditor moved for relief from the stay in order to pursue his state court remedies with respect to the bank account. The Chapter 7 Trustee objected on the grounds that only the third party citation created a lien on the bank account, so any lien Creditor might have on the funds is avoidable, and thus the estate's claim to the funds in the account is superior. HELD: Service on the Debtor created a lien on all of Debtor's personal property, including his bank account. Motion for relief from stay granted. Issued: March 30, 2010 |
09 B 29262 |
|
Chicago Truck Center, Inc. David Leibowitz, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of Chicago Truck v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation Chapter 7 trustee alleged that the defendant conspired with an affiliated entity and the affiliate's longtime customer in order to strip the debtor of its assets. Trustee argued that an agreement among these parties caused the debtor to undertake an “obligation” under the Bankruptcy Code and UFTA, and he sought to avoid that obligation as a fraudulent transfer. The court found that the only payments or transfers received by the defendant were for repayment of debts owed by the debtor under a financing arrangement. While payment on an antecedent debt may constitute a preference if sufficiently close in time to the bankruptcy filing, “it is not a fraudulent conveyance if the debtor simply repays a legitimate debt.” The court held that the defendant and its affiliate were independent legal entities, the defendant was not a party to any obligation or agreement, and therefore, the debtor assumed no obligation to the defendant that could be avoided as fraudulent. Issued: December 03, 2008 |
02 B 10050 04 A 01575 |
|
In re Royal
Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation of debtor's plan on the grounds that by excluding future earned income tax credits, she failed to commit all projected disposable income to the plan. In sustaining the objection and denying confirmation, the court determined that a rebuttable presumption exists that projected disposable income is calculated from the means test, and is disposable income multiplied by the number of months in the applicable commitment period. However, a party may present evidence to rebut that presumption, and the court can consider the evidence to determine what debtor's actual disposable income might be during the plan period. The Trustee also objected to the debtor's claim of exemption in her earned income tax credit, and the court overruled that objection. Issued: November 07, 2008 |
07 B 15826 |
|
In Re: Fred S. Weiner Dent-A-Med, Inc. v. Fred S. Weiner Plaintiff provided credit to patients of Debtor’s dental practice. Plaintiff failed to prove Debtor made fraudulent misrepresentations or perpetrated actual fraud by submitting “pre-billed” charge-slips for payment from Plaintiff and by “pre-billing” dental patients for work not yet performed because Plaintiff did not prohibit pre-billing and Plaintiff knew that charges were being pre-billed. Because Plaintiff failed to establish fraud, court did not reach alter-ego theory as to whether debtor was personally liable for debts of his corporate entities. Issued: July 03, 2008 |
05 B 54630 06 A 00688 |
|
In re: Jeffrey Oscarson Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Jeffrey Oscarson In its original opinion, the court found that the plaintiff/creditor did not meet its burden of proof under 727(a)(4)(A), and debtor/defendant prevailed. Judgment also entered for the defendant on 523(a)(2)(B) count. On appeal, the district court affirmed the 523 finding, but determined that the creditor established a presumption of an intent to deceive under 727. Therefore, the bankruptcy court should have shifted the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that he lacked fraudulent intent. The proceeding was remanded. On remand, the bankruptcy court applied the district court's standard and found for the plaintiff. Issued: July 02, 2008 |
05 B 52582 06 A 00511 |
|
In re: Gary Cole
Creditor sued Chapter 7 debtor seeking denial of discharge under 11 USC 727 and exception from discharge of debt under 11 USC 523. Debtor did not list interest as president and owner of catering company on Schedule B to his bankruptcy petition. Debtor also failed to maintain and produce documentation of transactions relating to his interest in catering company. Held: Discharge denied under 11 USC 727(a)(4) and 11 USC 727(a)(3). Issued: November 15, 2007 |
06 B 08794 06 A 01653 |
|
In Re: Diana and Dale Kasco
Prepetition, movant purchased the unpaid real estate taxes due for Debtors' residence. Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 13 just prior to expiration of the redemption period. Debtors scheduled the tax debt for payment to the county, and confirmed a plan that provided for payment of the tax debt during the term of the plan. Movant sought relief from the stay to proceed in state court after expiration of the redemption period. HELD: Movant is a creditor and the tax debt is a secured claim that can be paid over time through a Chapter 13 plan. No cause to grant relief from stay and motion denied. Issued: November 08, 2007 |
06 B 16620 |
|
In Re: Stephen A. Weiss
In this individual chapter 11, creditors moved for relief from stay based on purported underlying security interests in debtor's interests in various partnerships and LLCs. Creditors' interest arose out of an assignment of interests executed by debtor as security for two loans. Court found that under underlying operating agreements and Illinois law, debtor did not have authority to assign his interests without prior consent of other parties to the various agreements. Therefore, assignment was invalid. Accordingly, creditors did not have security interest and motion was denied. Issued: October 23, 2007 |
07 B 06781 |
|
Chatz v. BearingPoint
Chapter 7 trustee sued KPMG, whom debtor had retained to perform a valuation analysis for its employee stock purchase plan. The trustee sought over $20 million in damages, alleging that KPMG breached its contract with the debtor, committed professional malpractice, and aided and abetted debtor's directors and officers in the breach of their fiduciary duties. Held: Judgment for the defendants. After considering the numerous decisions made by KPMG in the exercise of its professional judgment, as well as the circumstances in which the valuation analysis was issued, court determined that KPMG was not negligent. Issued: May 17, 2007 |
03 A 02300 |
|
In Re: Darlene Williams
Chapter 13 debtor sought to retain her car over secured creditor's objection. Since debtor was not entitled to a discharge pursuant to 11 USC 1328(f), plan had to provide that the creditor retain its lien until payment of "the underlying debt determined under nonbankruptcy law." 11 USC 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I)(aa). Secured creditor objected on the grounds that the plan failed to do so. The issue was whether that phrase meant that the debtor had to pay the contract rate of interest or whether a prime-plus-risk-factor rate of interest as described in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 474 (2004), would be sufficient. Held: Till and its prime-plus-risk-factor analysis does not apply to the interpretation of 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I)(aa). Plan must provide that Debtor pay the contract rate of interest. Issued: April 23, 2007 |
06 B 15945 |
|
In re: Jeffrey F. Oscarson In re: Oscar F. Oscarson Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. , Jeffrey F. Oscarson Green Bay Packaging v. Oscar F. Oscarson Creditor who supplied business sued father and son debtors on the guarantee they had executed for the business, asserting that the debt was nondischargeable because of misstatements in the financial statements that supported the guarantee. The supplier also sought denial of the son's discharge based on omissions from his schedules. Held: Judgment for the defendants on all counts. Creditor failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it relied on the financial statements submitted with the guarantee, and there was no showing of an intent to deceive by the son. Issued: March 06, 2007 |
05 B 52582 05 B 52473 06 A 00511 06 A 00525 |
|
Nanovation Technologies, Inc. and Nanovation Technologies Of Michigan, Inc.,
Reconsideration sought of opinion granting summary judgment to insurers in declaratory judgment action. Movants argued that the court erred in finding that Florida Statute Section 627.426, which requires insurers to advise insureds within 30 days that a coverage defense would be raised, did not apply. Held: Motion denied. An insurer's determination that a notice of circumstances is insufficient to trigger coverage under a claims-made policy is not a coverage defense and so compliance with section 627.426 was not required. Issued: October 19, 2006 |
01 B 26090 (Jointly Administered) 02 A 01680 |
|
Nanovation Technologies, Inc. and Nanovation Technologies Of Michigan, Inc., Barry Chatz v National Union Fire Insurance Co., et al. Chapter 7 Trustee sued former directors and officers of debtor, then brought declaratory judgment action against D&O liability insurance carriers. Insurers had denied coverage for lack of notice. Parties filed six cross-motions for summary judgment on declaratory judgment action. Held: Purported "notice of circumstances" letter sent by debtor to insurers during policy period was deficient and did not constitute notice. Insurers had not waived their right to make that argument, neither were they estopped from making it. Insurers did not act in bad faith in denying coverage. The difference between claims made and occurrence liability policies is discussed. Issued: July 27, 2006 |
01 B 26090 (Jointly Administered) 02 A 01680 |
|
In Re: Georgia Davis Henry
Chapter 13 Trustee moved to dismiss case where debtor would have to continue to make payments beyond 5 years in order to complete her plan. Held: Although the court cannot confirm or modify a plan which would extend beyond 5 years, the fact that payments will be made for more than 5 years does not per se require dismissal under 1307(c). With that in mind, the court considered the particular factual circumstances and determined that cause for dismissal did not exist under 1307(c). Motion to dismiss denied. Issued: June 12, 2006 |
01 B 19852 |
|
In Re: Capital Acquisitions & Management Corporation
Receiver appointed in District Court litigation sought authority to sell Chapter 11 Debtor's interest in a limited liability company to one of the LLC members. Third party objected and submitted an offer. Receiver changed tactics and filed a motion seeking approval of bid procedures. The LLC objected and engaged in extensive briefing with the third party over whether the LLC's Operating Agreement was an executory contract. Parties also disputed whether the right of first refusal held by the other members of the LLC was enforceable in bankruptcy. HELD: The Operating Agreement of this particular LLC is not an executory contract. The right of first refusal is neither an ipso facto clause nor a restraint on assignment, and is enforceable. The Receiver's motion for approval of bid procedures is granted. Issued: April 27, 2006 |
05 B 12554 |
|
In re: Christopher Lynn Dameron Shawn DeAmicis vs. Christopher Lynn Dameron Debt owed by debtor contractor who took funds from customer but did not perform work and who forged insurance certificate found nondischargeable under 11 USC 523(a)(2)(A). Debtor's discharge denied under 11 USC 727(a)(4)(A) based on false testimony at meeting of creditors and during trial as well as false statements in schedules and statement of financial affairs. Discharge also denied under 11 USC 727(a)(3) and (a)(5). Issued: November 29, 2005 |
03 B 16263 03 A 02122 |
|
In Re: Braude Jewelry Corp.
Braude Jewelry filed chapter 11 and successfully confirmed its plan, including assumption of two leases. Within a year, Reorganized Braude filed a new liquidating chapter 11. After accomplishing certain actions -- including rejecting those assumed leases -- Braude II was dismissed. Meanwhile, the UST moved to convert Braude I to Chapter 7 and a trustee was appointed. The landlords whose leases were assumed in Braude I and rejected in Braude II filed claims in Braude I, seeking administrative priority for the claims arising from the breach of their leases. The IRS also filed a claim in Braude I, seeking allowance of a claim based on penalties for unpaid withholding and FICA taxes incurred during Braude II's post-petition business operations. The Braude I trustee filed an omnibus objection to claims. Held: Objections overruled and (1) landlords' claims allowed with administrative priority and (2) IRS claim allowed as a priority unsecured claim. Issued: September 30, 2005 |
00 B 04596 |
|
In Re: James Brown
Chapter 13 debtor not required to turn over proceeds of refinance to Trustee. Issued: July 08, 2005 |
03 B 23239 |
|
In re: James P. Whitmer Munson v. Whitmer Plaintiff sought finding that state court sanctions judgment against defendant was nondischargeable pursuant to 523(a)(6). At summary judgment, court had ruled that only issue for trial was whether defendant had the subjective knowledge that plaintiffs were substantially certain to be injured by his frivolous pleadings. Following trial, court held that defendant did have such subjective knowledge and therefore his debt was declared nondischargeable. Issued: April 27, 2005 |
03 B 42061 03 A 04790 |
|
In Re: Victor and Linda Wilson
Our Chapter 13 Model Plan does not modify a mortgagee's rights in violation of the Code. Instead, it simply provides a mechanism for adjudicating disputes involving those rights, such as might arise over postpetition defaults, fees, and costs of collection. Issued: February 25, 2005 |
04 B 26948 |
|
In Re: Elizabeth T. Dilling
Judgment debtor did not have sufficient assets to obtain an appeal bond, and after several efforts to post alternative security, filed an individual chapter 11 case. Judgment creditor moved to dismiss the bankruptcy as a bad faith filing or in the alternative to appoint trustee or convert case. Motion denied following an evidentiary hearing. Issued: February 24, 2005 |
04 B 03574 |
|
In Re Renee Jackson
Confirmation of a chapter 13 plan, alone, does not value individual assets scheduled by debtor. Bankruptcy Court must hold a hearing to expressly value an asset for purposes of 348(f) of the bankruptcy code. Issued: October 21, 2004 |
00 B 24953 |
|
In Re: Bettie J. Durrani Bettie J. Durrani vs. Educational Credit Management Corp.,assignee for Citibank, USA Upon reconsideration, Debtor satisfied all three elements of the Brunner test and her student loan was discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(8). Availability of income-contingent repayment plan did not preclude finding of undue hardship. Issued: June 30, 2004 |
97 B 16918 02 A 01859 |
|
In Re: David Vlcek
Pursuant to 11 USC 110(i)(1), if a bankruptcy petition preparer has violated any part of section 110, the bankruptcy court shall certify that violation to the district court. Issued: February 10, 2004 |
03 B 28311 |
|
In re: Artra Group, Inc.
An expert witness is not a "professional person" whose retention must be approved under 11 USC 327. Issued: December 02, 2003 |
02 B 21522 |
|
In re: Artra Group, Inc. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Artra Group, Inc. vs. Artra Group, Inc. and Entrade, Inc. The permanent injunction rejected by this court in September was amended to bar only those claims based on or derivative of injuries to the debtor or the estate, and the settlement agreement was approved. Issued: November 18, 2003 |
02 B 21522 02 A 01086 |
|
In re: Willie L. Davis
When a chapter 7 debtor redeems following conversion from chapter 13, under 11 USC 348(f)(1)(B) the redemption amount is the amount at which the allowed secured claim was valued in the confirmed chapter 13 plan. Issued: October 27, 2003 |
03 B 01519 |
|
In re: Artra Group, Inc Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Artra Group, Inc. vs. Artra Group, Inc. and Entrade, Inc. A permanent injunction in a settlement agreement, barring any and all claims against certain non-debtors, was not approved. Issued: September 30, 2003 |
02 B 21522 02 A 01086 |
|
In re The Estes Group, Inc., Debtor. G.D. Barri & Associates, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs v. The Estes Group, Inc. et al., Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Claim Defendant, and Alford Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant Whether a subcontractor who rendered services to the debtor was entitled to a mechanics lien because the contracts involved were "project-specific." Issued: September 17, 2003 |
01 B 15312 01 A 00800 |
|
In Re: Michael Linane and Sheila Linane
Mortgage deficiency judgment liens were avoided despite 11 USC 522(f)(2)(C), since deficiency judgments do not arise "out of a mortgage foreclosure." Issued: March 17, 2003 |
02 B 42557 |