You are here

Opinions

The District of XXXXX offers a database of opinions for the years 19XX to 2011, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Alternatively, would not the doctrine of collateral estoppel preclude a subsequent Chapter 7 trustee from objecting to the debtor s claimed exemption in a converted Chapter 7 if the exemption of that property had also been an issue in the Chapter 13 trustee s unsuccessful Section 1325(a)(4) objection to the debtor s prior plan? Nor would conversion of this case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 have affected the Chapter 7 trustee s right to object to Debtor s claimed objection had the prior ...

On March 16, 2007, Mr. Moyer filed an objection to various exemptions claimed by Debtors. Debtors also contend that Mr. Moyer s objections should be denied because Mr. Moyer did not in fact serve his objections upon Debtors personally as required by Rule 4003(b). Conclusion Although there remain at least some substantive disputes between Debtors and Mr. Moyer concerning the exemptions Debtors have claimed, those disputes are rendered moot because Mr. Moyer did not file a timely objection to ...

Traverse City, Michigan, attorney for Colleen Olson, Chapter 7 Trustee On June 1, 2007, Aegis Mortgage Company ( Aegis ) filed a motion entitled Motion to Vacate Order Reopening Case and to Reclose Case. Consequently, Aegis had sought through the state court litigation to reform the vacant lot mortgage that Debtors had actually granted to Aegis to include the Marley Street residence as well. Moreover, Ms. Olson has now commenced an adversary proceeding in which Aegis may raise its defenses...

Brighton, Michigan, attorney for Defendant Jeff A. Moyer, the Chapter 7 trustee in this case, commenced an adversary proceeding against Abn Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. ( Abn ) to avoid a mortgage Abn claims against Debtors residence. Rule 7012(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Abn argues that Mr. Moyer is barred from commencing the complaint by the statute of limitations imposed by Section 546(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.2 Abn further argues that Mr. Moyer may not now maintain the claim he has ...

It is also understood that district courts and bankruptcy courts within this circuit are bound by published Sixth Circuit decisions. Courts have also concluded that the decision of a single district court judge in a multiple judge district is not binding upon the bankruptcy court for that district. However, the amount of deference a bankruptcy court must give to a superior court s decisions is ultimately determined by whatever policy the superior court chooses to adopt.16 A superior court s...

Trustee s original complaint alleged that Huntington had received fraudulent transfers both under Section 548 and under the Michigan Fraudulent Transfer Act (via Section 544(b)). For example, Huntington persists in its contentions that Trustee s count for unjust enrichmentconstructive trust should be dismissed because Trustee lacks standing and that Trustee s fraudulent conveyance counts fail because Trustee is unable to establish that the subject transfers caused any diminution of CyberCo ...

Court Approval Of Trustee Settlements Rule 9019(a) is simple enough. Rule 9019(a) approval was unnecessary.11 Other courts also agree that Rule 9019(a) does not mandate court approval of settlements. Second, limiting court involvement in trustee settlements to only Section 363(b) sales considerably narrows the universe of settlements that may be approved.

Judge James D. Gregg

Issues May the Trustee avoid and recover restitution payments made by the Debtor and passed through the state court to R.B.K. to partially satisfy a judgment owed by the Debtor to R.B.K.? Stated differently, does R.B.K. have a valid defense to the Trustee's avoidance action because payments were indirectly paid pursuant to a restitution order rather than directly paid pursuant to a civil judgment? 7 V. Conclusion The Trustee may avoid and recover the $3,480.00 restitution payment made by ...

Did the stock cease to be property of the estate, thereby precluding the Trustee s sale, based upon the Debtors claimed federal catchall exemption? On Schedule C - Property Claimed as Exempt, the Debtors listed the joint stock interest and claimed exemptions under 522(d)(5) as follows: Husband $9,650 and Wife $4,500. In the absence of a filed objection, the property claimed exempt by the debtor is exempt.

The Debtors argue that if supplemental unemployment compensation benefits are not wages for purposes of income tax withholding, they are likewise not wages for purposes of Fica taxation. Accordingly, an employee s wages for social security tax purposes may be different from the employee s wages for income tax withholding purposes. Because supplemental unemployment compensation benefits are not wages for purposes of income tax withholding, they are likewise not wages under Fica.

Pages