Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Coles v. Glaser
(California Court of Appeal) – In contracts action, arising after plaintiff’s recovery on a settlement agreement with defendants was surrendered as a preferential payment after one declared bankruptcy, the trial court’s entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where a debt of a contractual co-obligor is not extinguished by another co-obligor’s pre-bankruptcy payment to a creditor that is later determined to be a bankruptcy preference.
Rajsic v. Valley Forge Insurance Co
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Rivera v. Orange County Probation Dep’t
(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a debtor’s motion to sanction Orange County for persisting post-discharge in its efforts to collect a debt arising from the debtor’s son’s involuntary juvenile detention, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion is reversed where the debtor’s liability for the costs of support of her son while in detention was not a ‘domestic support obligation’ and thus was not excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(5).
In re: Urdaneta
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
In Re Smith
(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a debtor’s adversary proceeding seeking a determination that his federal income tax liabilities were dischargeable in bankruptcy, the district court’s order reversing the bankruptcy court and entering summary judgment in favor of the IRS is affirmed where: 1) the debtor’s tax liabilities were non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(1)(B)(i), which exempts from discharge any debt for a tax with respect to which a return was not filed; and 2) debtor’s late-filed Form 1040 did not represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law, and he therefore did not file a ‘return’ within the meaning of section 523(a)(1)(B)(i).
In re Motors Liquidation Co.
(United States Second Circuit) – In an appeal of a Bankruptcy Court judgment enforcing a ‘free and clear’ provision of a sale order to enjoin claims against a debtor’s successor corporation and concluding under the equitable mootness doctrine that assets of the debtor’s unsecured creditors’ trust would be protected from late‐filed claims, the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment is: 1) affirmed as the decision not to enforce the Sale Order as to the independent claims; 2) reversed insofar as it enforced the Sale Order to enjoin claims relating to the ignition switch defect; 3) vacated insofar as it enjoined claims based in non‐ignition switch defects; and 4) vacated as to the decision on equitable mootness as advisory.
Hoover v. Harrington
(United States First Circuit) – In a bankruptcy case, the District Court’s affirmation of the Bankruptcy Court’s conversion of debtor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to a case under Chapter 7 is affirmed where there was no error of law or abuse of discretion by the Bankruptcy Court in converting debtor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to Chapter 7.
In re Hoover
(United States First Circuit) – In an ethics action, the district court’s order of sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(b)(2) against debtor’s attorney, ordering him to enroll in a one-semester class on legal ethics or professional responsibility at an ABA accredited law school, is affirmed where it was not an abuse of discretion to order such a sanction following the attorney’s multiple misstatements of the law.
Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust
(United States Supreme Court) – In a suit to enjoin the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act, portions of which mirror Chapters 9 and 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code and enable Puerto Rico’s public utility corporations to restructure their climbing debt, the where section 903(1) of the Bankruptcy Code pre-empts Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act, the First Circuit’s affirmance of the District Court’s judgment enjoining the Act, on grounds that the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “State” to include Puerto Rico, except for purposes of defining who may be a debtor under Chapter 9 section 101(52), did not remove Puerto Rico from the scope of the pre-emption provision, is affirmed where section 903(1) of the Bankruptcy Code pre-empts Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act.