Source: http://legaliq.com/Court/Bankruptcy_Court_For_The_District_Of_Connecticut
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 18:19:41
Document Index: 551816773

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 157', '§ 707', '§ 707', '§ 727', '§ 1322', '§ 1322', '§ 506', '§ 1322', '§ 548', '§ 506', '§ 707', '§ 157', '§ 548', '§ 546', '§ 522', '§ 503', '§ 506']

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut Court Cases and Information
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut Court Cases
Searching: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut
In Re Jorczak (2004)
This matter raises in a somewhat unusual context the issue of when does a filed proof of claim "constitute[ ] prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim" (the "Presumption") within the purview of Rule 3001(f) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, or otherwise establish a prima facie case. This is a core proceeding within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). This memorandum constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law to the extent mandated by Rule 7052 of the [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: 99-33729(LMW)
In Re Longo (2007)
This case presents the question of whether payments on secured debt are proper deductions under the "means test" of Bankruptcy Code § 707(b)(2)(A) when the debtor has filed a statement of his intent to surrender the collateral securing that debt. Before the court are: (1) United States Trustee's (the "UST") Motion To Dismiss the Debtor's Chapter 7 Case Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2) (Doc. I.D. No. 26, the "Motion");[1] and (2) the abovereferenced debtor's (the "Debtor") objection thereto [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: 06-30781 (LMW)
In Re Maletta (1993)
On March 29, 1990, the defendant commenced this case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 20, 1990, Allegheny International commenced the instant adversary proceeding. The plaintiff, Montey Corporation, is the successor-in-interest to Allegheny International. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant should be denied a discharge because he made false oaths or accounts, § 727(a)(4)(A); transferred property within one year of the commencement of the case, with the intent to hinder, [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 5-90-00533, Adv. No. 90-5304
In Re Hornes (1993)
On June 1, 1993, the Supreme Court held that § 1322(b)(2) precludes a chapter 13 plan from treating a portion of an undersecured creditor's claim as unsecured, where the sole security for the claim is the debtor's principal residence. Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993). Although that decision was widely anticipated for its resolution of what has been a contentious issue, it has, predictably, also spawned a new series of issues as debtors' counsel [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 92-53130, Document No. 13
Matter of Plouffe (1993)
The United States Supreme Court in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) decided that Bankruptcy Code "§ 1322(b)(2)[1] prohibits a Chapter 13 debtor from relying on § 506(a)[2] to reduce an undersecured homestead mortgage to the fair market value of the mortgaged residence." Nobelman, 508 U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2108, 124 L.Ed.2d at 233. The question presented in this proceeding is whether § 1322(b)(2) also prohibits the debtor from relying [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 2-93-00996
In Re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. (2005)
The matters before the court are the above-referenced motions to dismiss the above-captioned adversary proceedings (the "Proceedings") which motions (the "Motions"), pursuant to a prior order of the court, have been treated and disposed of as motions for summary judgment.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 01-34624 (LMW). Adversary Nos. 03-3074(LMW), 03-3075CLMW), 03-3076(LMW), 03-3183(LMW)
In Re Colonial Realty Co. (1998)
In this adversary proceeding, which consumed six trial days, Hal M. Hirsch ("the trustee"), trustee of the consolidated estates of Colonial Realty Company ("Colonial"), Jonathan Googel ("Googel"), and Benjamin Sisti ("Sisti") (together, "the debtors"), primarily contends that transfers of certain corporate stock by Googel and Sisti to Gerald Steinberg ("Steinberg") and Robert Simons ("Simons") constituted fraudulent transfers under Bankruptcy Code § 548(a).[1] The trustee asserts the transfers [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 90-21980, Adversary No. 96-2255
In Re Pellegrino (1984)
The plaintiffs, debtors, brought this action to determine, inter alia, the dischargeability of an order of restitution entered by the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut for the Judicial District of New Haven as a condition of probation in connection with a larceny conviction of the debtor Florence Pellegrino.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 5-83-00361, Adv. No. 5-83-0554
In Re Adebanjo (1994)
The defendant The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (the "defendant"), seeks an order vacating a judgment which entered August 5, 1991, bifurcating its first mortgage into secured and unsecured claims. See § 506(a). The defendant contends that a stipulation it entered into with the debtors on August 27, 1991, requires the application of Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) which compels that result. Because I conclude that the stipulation does not [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 90-51903-13. Adv. No. 90-5382
In Re Klus (1994)
The movant, Keycorp Mortgage Inc., seeks to modify the debtors' confirmed chapter 13 plan so that its claim will be treated as fully secured, rather than secured in part and unsecured in part.[1] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that Keycorp's motion must be denied.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 92-50062. Docket Id. No. 29
In Re Heffernan (1999)
The matter before the court is a motion of Carolyn S. Schwartz, United States Trustee for Region 2 ("the UST") for dismissal of the joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy case of William P. Heffernan ("WH") and Carol Ann Heffernan ("CH") (together, "the debtors" or "the Heffernans"), pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 707(b), for "substantial abuse" of Chapter 7 provisions. The court held a hearing on November 4, 1999, at which the debtors were the sole witnesses, testifying regarding their income, expenses [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 99-21782
In Re Lundborg (1990)
Susan Lundborg ("Lundborg"), a former wife and a creditor of the debtor, has filed motions to remove the chapter 7 trustee, to preserve creditors' interests, and to dismiss this case. The debtor has also filed a motion to remove the trustee. The debtor's motion has been consolidated for trial with Lundborg's motions.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 5-89-00059
In Re Crandall (1994)
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 2-93-01914
Matter of Taff (1981)
Frederick N. Taff, the debtor, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 25, 1980. Except for an unpaid fee to his attorney, the only creditor listed in his schedules is his former wife, Elizabeth C. Warren (plaintiff). Her claim, listed in the amount of $21,900.00, is described as a "contract debt  disputed". Taff's schedules of assets and exemptions disclose various items of personal property with a total stated value of $8,862.26, and social security [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 2-80-00977, Adv. Proceeding No. 2-80-0478
In Re Tel-A-Communications Consultants, Inc. (1985)
The plaintiff has sought and obtained a temporary restraining order[1] and a preliminary injunction from this court, restraining the defendant from transferring a 1983 Delorean automobile on a finding that such a transfer would cause the plaintiff irreparable harm.[2] The plaintiff now seeks an order for the turnover of that vehicle and sanctions which brings into focus the scope and purpose of Code sections 542(a), 363(e), 365(b), and 362(h).
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 5-85-00105, Adv. No. 5-85-0054
Dioyca Caraballo (2008)
Before the court are (1) a motion (Doc. I.D. No. 17)[1] to approve a certain Reaffirmation Agreement (Doe. I.D. No. 15) and (2) a motion (Doc. I.D. No. 18) to approve a second Reaffirmation Agreement (Doc. I.D. No. 16).[2] The court has jurisdiction over this matter as a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b) and 1334(b) and that certain Order dated September 21, 1984 of this District (Daly, C.J.).[3]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: 07-32469
Matter of Ottaviano (1986)
The matter before the court is the complaint of the debtor, Peter D. Ottaviano, for the return "for the benefit of [the] estate" of $2,900.00 received by the defendant, Sorokin & Sorokin, P.C. (hereinafter "Sorokin"). The complaint asserts three causes of action: a fraudulent transfer to Sorokin avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 548; knowing receipt by Sorokin of embezzled funds; and participation by Sorokin as a party to an embezzlement.[1] A brief evidentiary hearing held on September 10, [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 2-85-00011, Adv. No. 2-85-0059
In Re Austin Driveway Services, Inc. (1995)
The plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint to avoid an alleged preferential transfer which was not challenged in the original complaint. Because the proposed amendment challenges a distinct transaction, I conclude that it does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint and is therefore time barred by § 546(a)(1).
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 90-52173. Adv. No. 93-5087. Docket Id. No. 48
In Re Vincent (2000)
In the above-captioned matter the Debtors seek to avoid pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) a judgment lien held by the Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (hereafter, "Dime") on real property owned by them at the commencement of their bankruptcy case, but conveyed by them to third parties prior to the institution of the present contested matter. This controversy rests on an unusual factual scenario which gives rise to two contested legal issues. For the reasons stated below, the Court determines [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: 94-31461
In Re Wonder Corp. of America (1987)
On June 23, 1986, Wonder Corporation of America ("Wonder") filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The case was converted to Chapter 11 on September 18, 1986. On March 4, 1987, an ex parte scheduling order entered fixing March 20, 1987 as the last date for filing all applications for administrative expenses under Code § 503 and for professional fees and costs under Code § 506(b).[1] The order further stated that "in the event that the applications are not so filed with this [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut	Docket: Bankruptcy No. 5-86-00436