Source: https://opinions.abi.org/homeview?page=1343
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:34:03+00:00

Document:
The debtor underwent a bankruptcy in a Chapter 11 proceeding. After the debtor's death, plaintiff personal representative reopened the debtor's case and sued defendant, the U.S. government, by its agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to determine liability for interest and penalties on taxes from before the bankruptcy filing. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Confirmation of debtor's plan did not discharge debtor's tax liability since it is a debt excepted from discharge.
After the bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of defendant debtor, the debtor then filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011. The bankruptcy court ruled that the motion was untimely. The U.S. District Court remanded the matter, holding that there were no time constraints under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
Court held that it had jurisdiction to impose sanctions for attorneys'unreasonable prolonging of proceedings.
A chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor supplied inaccurate or incomplete financial information even after amending the debtor's schedules several times. Creditors moved for conversion or dismissal of the debtor's petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) based on the debtor's bad faith in the bankruptcy proceedings and in the debtor's proposed plan of reorganization.
Court granted creditor's motion for conversion to chapter 7 due to debtor's bad faith evidenced by misinformation and nondisclosures.
Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition. The debtor had filed two previous Chapter 7 bankruptcies, in both of which the debtor failed to pay the required fees, and the cases were dismissed. The debtor owed $335.00 to the court. The bankruptcy clerk asked the court to dismiss the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(1). The court ordered the debtor to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.
Nonpayment of filing fees in prior bankruptcy cases was not grounds for dismissing the current case.
Movant creditors sought leave to file an appeal or alternatively an enlargement of the time in which to file a notice of appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision denying their motion for reconsideration relating to the expungement of their claims against the chapter 11 debtors.
Creditors were denied leave to appeal since creditors failed to show sufficient reason for failing to timely appeal or establish any other excusable neglect factors.
The debtor filed a chapter 7 case pro se. The debtor requested a waiver of the credit counseling requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 109(h).
Pro se debtor did not sufficiently allege grounds for obtaining an exemption from the prefiling credit counseling requirement, but the court permitted the debtor to supplement the exemption request and and to obtain a credit briefing within 30 days of filing.
Debtors petitioned for bankruptcy relief pursuant to chapter 13 on October 20, 2005. The debtors had not completed the prepetition credit counseling required by 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1), and they filed a motion to obtain an exemption from the credit counseling requirement or for an extension of time in which to meet the requirement.
Debtors were denied motion for exemption from prefiling credit counseling requirement since they had failed to certify that they had requested but were unable to obtain the counseling.
Plaintiff debtor filed suit against defendant United States for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) that certain tax liability was dischargeable. The debtor proposed to deal with that claim in the instant Chapter 11 case. The government opposed the complaint and moved for summary judgment.
Old tax liability was deemed nondischargeable since the government established debtor had willfully attempted to evade tax payments.
Plaintiffs, several buyers or intended buyers of homes built by debtors, brought consolidated adversary proceeding seeking denial of a discharge of debtors'obligations to them pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 and a determination that debtors'debts to them were not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523.
Debtor builders were denied discharge since the numerous errors and omissions in their schedules amounted to a reckless disregard for the truth.
Plaintiff chapter 7 trustee sought avoidance of the transfer of property between defendants, debtor and his father, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 549(a). The court previously determined that the "earmarking doctrine" did not apply to the transfer. The matter was remanded from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The earmarking doctrine did not apply to a postpetition mortgage transaction, and the mortgage was invalid since a prior transfer of the underlying property was avoided.
In re E.S. Profl Servs.
Petitioning creditor filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition under 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(2) against the alleged debtor. The court conducted a trial on the involuntary bankruptcy petition.
Creditor's involuntary petition was dismissed where the debtor showed that the debtor had more than twelve creditors and was generally paying its debts as they came due.
Plaintiff bankruptcy trustee brought an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor seeking to revoke the debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(2) for the debtor's failure to turn over an inheritance that the debtor received after filing the debtor's bankruptcy petition. The debtor turned over the required amount immediately prior to trial.
Debtor's discharge was revoked since the debtor failed to comply with instructions to turn over any inheritance obtained within six months of discharge and only complied on the eve of trial.
The debtors filed petitions for chapter 11 bankruptcy. The creditor filed a motion to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 1112.
Debtors'cases were dismissed since their plans offered illusory promises of payment and were filed to delay the creditor.
Debtors proposed a second amended chapter 12 plan of reorganization for their farming operation. Two creditors objected, and the trustee in bankruptcy recommended confirmation of the plan only if its terms were altered.
Plan confirmation was denied where the debtors had failed to file a motion to modify the plan and to demonstrate that the plan was feasible.

References: § 105
 § 1927
 § 1927
 § 1307
 § 109
 § 109
 § 109
 § 2201
 § 727
 § 523
 § 549
 § 303
 § 727
 § 1112