Bankruptcy Court Summary Jurisdiction

119 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Margiotta v. Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue
  214 F.2d 518· 2d Cir.· 1954-07-02 ·cited 8×
• In re Meade Tool & DIE Co. Szatkowski v. Meade Tool & DIE Co.
  164 F.2d 228· 6th Cir.· 1947-11-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a bankruptcy claimant should be permitted to amend their claim to show garnishment security, even after the deadline for filing claims, if the mistake was due to ignorance and substantial justice requires it.
• Bank of Cal. v. McBride. in re W. Bond & Mortg. Co.
  132 F.2d 769· 9th Cir.· 1943-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to order the turnover of property transferred through a series of sham transactions, and could award ancillary relief such as rental value.
• In re Chicago & N. W. RY. Co. Hicks v. Thomson
  127 F.2d 1001· 7th Cir.· 1942-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Camp deed conveyed only an easement for railroad purposes, and a retail filling station is an improper use of that easement land.
• In re Marine Distribs., Inc. v. Smith
  522 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-05 ·cited 7×
  The bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction to enjoin payment on irrevocable letters of credit because the bank and the beneficiaries were adverse claimants, and the letters of credit were not property of the bankrupt estate.
• Atlanta Flooring & Insulation Co., Inc. v. Russell
  146 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1945-01-30 ·cited 7×
  The bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to inquire into the nature of state court proceedings and claims, but must decline to adjudicate substantial adverse claims, remitting such matters to plenary proceedings.
• PIC Realty Corp. v. Evans
  605 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-02 ·cited 6×
  The bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction over the settlement agreements because the Vita interests did not possess sufficient property rights in the hotel at the time of filing, and PIC did not consent to such jurisdiction beyond matters related to the lease.
• In re Sec. Inv. Props., Inc. v. Sec. Inv. Props., Inc.
  559 F.2d 1321· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-29 ·cited 6×
  A bankruptcy court cannot exercise summary jurisdiction to compel a public utility to provide future services without security, absent a debtor's property interest in the service itself.
• In re Invs. Funding Corp. OF NEW York v. Bloor
  547 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 6×
  A reorganization court may enjoin a state court action if it relates to the debtor's business and would impede the reorganization proceedings, but lacks summary jurisdiction to enforce the bankrupt's claims against third parties.
• In re Chicagoland Ideel Cleaners, Inc. v. Bankruptcy
  495 F.2d 1283· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction to order the turnover of assets seized by the IRS via notice of levy, as possession was constructively with the United States prior to bankruptcy.
• In re Kirchoff Frozen Foods v. Gilbert
  496 F.2d 84· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that filing a claim defensively against a bankrupt estate does not constitute consent to summary jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the claimant's right to retain funds.
• Bankruptcy v. Country Life Ins. Co.
  423 F.2d 151· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the lower courts' refusal to exercise summary jurisdiction, holding that the bankruptcy trustee failed to establish the bankrupt's possession at the time of filing, which is typically required for summary jurisdiction.
• Pasadena Inv. Co. & William J. Clark v. Weaver
  376 F.2d 175· 9th Cir.· 1967-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to determine the validity of the trust deed, and the debtor was not estopped from asserting defenses against the assignee of the note and trust deed.
• William B. Teasdale in Bankr. of Royal Laundries, Inc. v. Robinson
  290 F.2d 108· 8th Cir.· 1961-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Robinsons' claim to the $87,000 was colorable and not a substantial adverse claim, thus the bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to order its turnover.
• Mrs. Charlotte L. Worley v. Elliott
  231 F.2d 526· 6th Cir.· 1956-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decrees, finding no jurisdiction for the appellant's petitions and no disclosed causes of action.
• Thompson v. Dachner
  214 F.2d 922· 9th Cir.· 1954-08-13 ·cited 6×
  The bankruptcy court does not have summary jurisdiction over funds held by a third party asserting a substantial and adverse claim, even if that claim originated from a levy later invalidated by state court proceedings.
• In re Childs Co. Brodsky v. Finn
  163 F.2d 379· 2d Cir.· 1947-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in ordering Brodsky to consummate the purchase through his nominee, as the contract approved by the court was with the nominee, not Brodsky, and thus Brodsky was not personally liable beyond the deposit.
• First Bank of Marianna v. Pinckney. in re Beall's Estate
  139 F.2d 575· 5th Cir.· 1944-01-05 ·cited 6×
  The bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to order the turnover of funds paid by estate executors to a bank, and the payment was properly ordered returned as it discharged the bankrupt's debt, not the estate's.
• White v. Steinman
  120 F.2d 799· 2d Cir.· 1941-06-09 ·cited 6×
• In re W. Produce Corp.
  118 F.2d 274· 2d Cir.· 1941-03-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trustee failed to prove possession or control of diverted assets, and that certain payments were preferential but not voidable. The objection to summary jurisdiction over the Buick was untimely.
• Gorenz v. State of Ill. Dep't of Agric.
  653 F.2d 1179· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-15 ·cited 5×
  The bankruptcy court cannot summarily adjudicate claims to property not in its possession unless the claimant's claim is unsubstantial and without color of merit.
• In re Brewster-Raymond Co. v. Bankruptcy
  344 F.2d 903· 6th Cir.· 1965-04-30 ·cited 5×
  Tax penalties and interest on penalties are not allowable against a bankrupt estate under Section 57, sub. j of the Bankruptcy Act, and a government levy on an intangible debt owed to the bankrupt prior to bankruptcy creates only a lien, not a transfer of title, thus the bankrupt
• In re Jules Meyers Pontiac, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
  779 F.2d 480· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that bankruptcy courts must weigh the equities of a case before ordering the repayment of erroneously paid dividends under the old Bankruptcy Act.
• In re Rehkopf Mattress Sales, Inc. v. Brown
  479 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly exercised summary jurisdiction over the store because the bankrupt remained in actual possession of the property at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed.
• In re LOS Angeles Tr. Deed & Mortg. Exch. v. Phipps
  464 F.2d 1136· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy referee did not have summary jurisdiction over the trustees' counterclaim because it arose from transactions separate from the creditors' claims, and the creditors timely objected to jurisdiction.
• In re Stockman Dev. Co. v. Westinghouse Credit Corp.
  447 F.2d 387· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to determine reclamation petitions even when property was subject to competing claims and a tax sale occurred with knowledge of those claims.
• In re Behring AND Behring v. Humphreys
  445 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court does not have summary jurisdiction over the Trustee's counterclaim because the transactions underlying the counterclaim are separate from those forming the basis of Nissho's claim and were not necessary to adjudicate the claim.
• In re Homes v. Danning
  434 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant is deemed to have consented to the Bankruptcy Court's summary jurisdiction because they failed to timely object to the trustee's application.
• Hollywood Nat'l Bank v. Bumb
  409 F.2d 23· 9th Cir.· 1969-03-13 ·cited 4×
  A bankruptcy court does not have summary jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for damages for breach of contract against a third party.
• In re Consol. Container Carriers, Inc.
  385 F.2d 362· 3d Cir.· 1967-09-28 ·cited 4×
  A valid foreign attachment served more than four months before bankruptcy divests the bankrupt of possessory interest in the attached asset, precluding the bankruptcy court's summary jurisdiction.
• Irving L. Wharton in Reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankr. Act of Cont'l Vending Mach. Corp. v. Hirsch
  348 F.2d 906· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that unestablished and unliquidated claims do not grant summary jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court, and a second application raising the same issues is barred by the law of the case doctrine.
• James H. White in Bankr. for Las Olas Inn Corp. v. Murtha
  343 F.2d 831· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Pension Fund is entitled to a set-off for necessary operating expenses paid to preserve the estate, but the hotel furniture and furnishings were not encumbered by the mortgage.
• Crittenden v. Kal W. Lines in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Coy C. Goodrich
  327 F.2d 537· 9th Cir.· 1964-02-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant, as an unsecured creditor, lacked standing to challenge the trustee's actions regarding government contracts and real property, and was barred by laches and res judicata from raising previously settled issues.
• Solomon v. Allied BLDG. Credits, Inc.
  209 F.2d 828· 8th Cir.· 1954-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction to compel the turnover of payments made to a creditor from funds acquired by the bankrupt after the filing of the bankruptcy petition, where the creditor acted in good faith and for valuable consideration.
• Aldrich Shoe Co. v. Kagan
  173 F.2d 457· 1st Cir.· 1949-03-25 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction over funds deposited with a state court clerk pursuant to a court order, even if the creditor claims equitable ownership, because the deposit constitutes a lien obtained by legal process that is voidable under Section 67(a) of the Ban
• In re Gold Medal Laundries v. Cline
  142 F.2d 301· 7th Cir.· 1944-04-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that appellants' objection to summary jurisdiction was timely raised, and the district court erred in reversing the referee's dismissal on that ground.
• England v. Nyhan
  141 F.2d 311· 9th Cir.· 1944-02-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to determine adverse claims when the bankrupt possesses the property, even if an adverse claimant asserts ownership.
• In re Mauch Chunk Brewing Co.
  131 F.2d 48· 3d Cir.· 1942-08-28 ·cited 4×
  A bank waives its right of set-off against a debtor's deposit if its conduct is inconsistent with asserting that right, allowing for a summary turnover order in bankruptcy proceedings.
• Coffman v. Cobra MFG. Co.
  214 F.2d 489· 9th Cir.· 1954-06-28 ·cited 3×
  A bare denial of indebtedness or claim to property by a third party in supplementary proceedings is sufficient to defeat summary procedure if the claim has a reasonable prima facie basis, and a plenary action is required unless the claim is demonstrably sham.
• In re Dinkins v. Dinkins
  610 F.2d 367· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-25 ·cited 2×
• In re Naviera Azta, S.A. v. Brock
  500 F.2d 390· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction over accounts receivable and collected funds held by a general agent for the bankrupt.
• In re Desert Paint & Supply Co. v. Clements-Appellee
  479 F.2d 45· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction over property held by a third party asserting a bona fide claim, absent consent to such proceedings. The property cannot be treated as part of the bankrupt estate until resolved in a plenary proceeding.
• In re Wonderbowl, Inc. v. Bumb
  456 F.2d 954· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court should have dismissed or stayed its summary proceeding pending the outcome of a plenary suit in federal court.
• William A. Schmitt in Bankr. of Gold Medal Packing Corp. v. Blackwelder
  379 F.2d 278· 2d Cir.· 1967-06-07 ·cited 2×
  The bankruptcy court does not have exclusive summary jurisdiction over property in the possession of a state court receiver when a foreclosure proceeding predates the bankruptcy petition.
• James Talcott, Inc. v. William H. Collier in Bankr. of J. A. Riley Lumber Co., Inc.
  357 F.2d 23· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a note given in satisfaction of a debt, even if payable to the assignor, constitutes 'proceeds' of an assigned account receivable under the Alabama Assignment of Accounts Receivable Act and is therefore protected from the claims of a bankruptcy trustee.
• Crane v. Wikle
  298 F.2d 261· 9th Cir.· 1961-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to determine the validity of the attachment lien, and that the lien was void as it was obtained within four months of bankruptcy against an insolvent debtor.
• Abramson v. George Gardner in Bankr. of the Est. of Feldman-Selje Corp. Bankrupt
  253 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a judicial sale of property to a creditor with knowledge of the debtor's insolvency, within four months of bankruptcy, is voidable by the trustee, especially when there was no change in possession.
• Walker v. Leach
  158 F.2d 15· 10th Cir.· 1946-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that attachments levied within four months of bankruptcy filing are void if the debtor was insolvent at the time, and that a justice court lacked jurisdiction to issue an attachment on a contract claim.
• N.Y. Credit Men's Ass'n v. Mfrs. Disc. Corp.
  147 F.2d 885· 2d Cir.· 1945-03-08 ·cited 2×
  The bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction over accounts receivable because the appellee, as assignee, exercised complete control and dominion over them, establishing a substantial adverse claim.
• Kendrick v. Watkins
  121 F.2d 287· 4th Cir.· 1941-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the attempted gifts of personal property from a husband to his wife were ineffective under Virginia law because actual possession did not remain with the wife.