Bankruptcy Rule 8013

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

• In re Thomas v. Thomas
  883 F.2d 991· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 70×
  The court held that SouthTrust's lien on the mobile home was not voided by the debtors' Chapter 13 plan confirmation, and SouthTrust was entitled to relief from the stay to pursue its detinue action.
• In re Morrissey v. Arnold
  717 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 47×
  A district court cannot refer an appeal from a bankruptcy court order to a magistrate, even with the parties' consent, due to a specific statutory prohibition.
• In re T & B Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. Ballenger Corp.
  833 F.2d 1455· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that neither the relationship nor events between the general contractor and subcontractor established a contract or duty rendering the contractor liable for the bank's losses from the subcontractor's default.
• Owen v. Owen (In Re Owen)
  86 B.R. 691· M.D. Fla.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 37×
  A judicial lien that attached to property prior to the debtor acquiring that interest is not avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) because the debtor did not acquire an unencumbered interest at the time of acquisition.
• In re Branding Iron Motel, Inc. v. Sandlian Equity, Inc.
  798 F.2d 396· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 34×
  The district court erred by conducting a de novo review of the bankruptcy court's factual findings instead of applying the 'clearly erroneous' standard.
• In re Tex. Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp.
  844 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 31×
  The court held that an order approving a disclosure statement is not a final order for purposes of appeal, and that the bankruptcy court's application of Rule 70 was harmless error. The court also affirmed the cancellation of the lis pendens.
• In re Tully v. Tully
  818 F.2d 106· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 30×
  A debtor's knowing and fraudulent false oath or omission of material information in bankruptcy schedules warrants denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A).
• In re Edward M. Johnson & Assocs., Inc. v. Johnson
  845 F.2d 1395· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that J&A was an intended third-party beneficiary of the stock sale contract, reversing the district court's decision on this point, but remanded issues regarding failure of consideration defenses. The court also reversed the district court's factual finding on unpa
• In re Jordan v. Se. Nat'l Bank
  927 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a debt incurred through materially false financial statements, including contractually agreed-upon attorney's fees and interest, is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) if the creditor reasonably relied on those statements with intent to deceive.
• In re Morris Commc'ns NC, Inc. v. Ashley Commc'ns, Inc.
  914 F.2d 458· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge erred in voiding the transfer of corporate stock for less than reasonably equivalent value, as the transaction was an arm's length bargain between parties with no superior knowledge, and the valuation method was flawed.
• In re Yeates v. Yeates
  807 F.2d 874· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the $6,000 debt, agreed to by the debtor in exchange for the former spouse waiving alimony, was in the nature of support and therefore nondischargeable in bankruptcy, as the parties intended it to cover the spouse's need for housing.
• In re ALL Am. OF Ashburn, Inc. v. Blanton
  805 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 7×
  The bankruptcy court did not exceed its authority in enjoining shareholders from pursuing an action that belonged to the debtor corporation's estate, as the claims had been settled by the trustee.
• In re X-Cel, Inc.
  776 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review applies to bankruptcy court findings, the bankruptcy court's order was too unclear to apply this standard, necessitating a remand.
• Intru, Inc. v. Regency Realty Assocs. (In re Regency Realty Associates)
  M.D. Fla.· 1997-02-13 ·cited 5×
  The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration or rehearing of the disallowance of the appellant's late-filed claim.
• Sipes v. Gen. Dev. Corp. (In Re Gen. Dev. Corp.)
  177 B.R. 1000· S.D. Fla.· 1995-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order, holding that the Sipes were not denied due process and that their homesite purchase agreement was an executory contract subject to rejection under the Bankruptcy Code.
• In re Lenard v. Lenard
  849 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a good-faith purchaser in a transaction that renders the debtor insolvent is entitled to recover the price paid, even if the sale is revoked by creditors under the Louisiana revocatory action.
• Rawson Food Servs., Inc. v. Creditors' Comm.
  67 B.R. 351· M.D. Fla.· 1986-11-20 ·cited 4×
  Severance pay claims computed based on length of employment are not administrative expenses entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code because the consideration for such claims accrues before bankruptcy.
• In re Pikes Peak Water Co. v. Pikes Peak Water Co.
  779 F.2d 1456· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's interpretation of the loan documents and confirmation of the reorganization plan were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the lower court's decisions.
• Bilzerian v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (In Re Bilzerian)
  276 B.R. 285· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of the Chapter 7 case, holding that 'cause' under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a) can include pre-petition conduct aimed at frustrating judicial processes and that the debtor's actions constituted such cause.
• In re Immenhausen Corp.
  159 B.R. 45· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by limiting the debtor's counsel's reimbursement for travel expenses without sufficient factual findings. The court remanded for factual determinations regarding counsel authorization and compensation.
• In re Virginia-Carolina Fin. Corp. v. Creative Fin. Mgmt.
  954 F.2d 193· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a payment made by debtors to a creditor was a voidable preference because it was on account of an antecedent debt and the creditor received more than they would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation, regardless of collateral held from a third party.
• In re Clarkson v. Cooke Sales & Serv. Co. & Farmers Home Admin.
  767 F.2d 417· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying confirmation of the reorganization plan due to its infeasibility and lack of demonstrated funding.
• Matter of Sundale Assocs., Ltd.
  48 B.R. 288· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining the creditor's claim amount and dismissing the Chapter 11 proceedings.
• Scrap Metal Buyers of Tampa, Inc. v. Charles Bluestone Co.
  214 B.R. 509· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-14 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of sanctions and bad faith findings but remanded for redetermination of attorney's fees due to ambiguity.
• In re Envirocon Intern. Corp.
  214 B.R. 251· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-12 ·cited 1×
  The district court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the IRS participation in asset distribution because the IRS failed to file a motion to value collateral as required by law, and the order was not an improper ex parte preparation.
• In re Sims v. Sims
  994 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the alter ego doctrine is inapplicable in contract-based involuntary bankruptcy petition cases absent fraud, and that ordinary corporate law principles apply to determine if petitioning creditors are separate entities.
• State of Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Davis (In Re Davis)
  465 B.R. 309· M.D. Fla.· 2011-09-13
  The Eleventh Circuit's decision in In re Diaz dictates that a bankruptcy court's disallowance of a child support claim does not prevent a state from pursuing collection of that nondischargeable debt post-bankruptcy. Therefore, the bankruptcy court erred in enjoining the state fro
• Liquidity Solutions, Inc. v. Winn-Dixie Stores
  377 B.R. 322· M.D. Fla.· 2007-10-10
  The court granted Winn-Dixie's motion to dismiss the appeals, finding them equitably moot.
• Epic Metals Corp. v. Condec, Inc.
  232 B.R. 806· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-19
  The court held that a reorganization plan cannot be confirmed if the debtor's initial bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith, and that artificially impairing classes of creditors to secure confirmation votes violates the Bankruptcy Code.
• Cal. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Bicoastal Corp. (In Re Bicoastal Corp.)
  242 B.R. 43· M.D. Fla.· 1998-09-30
  The court held that publication notice was sufficient for a contingent, unliquidated claim and that the appellant's delay in filing did not constitute excusable neglect, thus affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a late claim filing.
• Principal Mut. Life Ins. v. Langhorne (In Re 848 Brickell Ltd.)
  243 B.R. 142· S.D. Fla.· 1998-03-30
  The court held that Principal's security interests in cash accounts should not have been extinguished and its administrative claim should be reinstated, but vacated and remanded punitive damages awards for abuse of process and tortious interference.
• Guy v. Dzikowski (In Re Atlas)
  222 B.R. 656· S.D. Fla.· 1998-03-06
  The court affirmed multiple appeals from post-judgment proceedings concerning the appellant's failure to pay child support, upholding the trial court's dismissal of his petition for modification due to lack of record activity.
• Weingarten v. Campagna (In re Weingarten)
  1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2462· M.D. Fla.· 1995-02-28
  The Court held that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in granting default judgment and denying discharge because the debtor failed to provide a timely and sufficient answer and did not demonstrate excusable neglect or a meritorious defense.
• Kapila v. Beahm (In Re Beahm)
  179 B.R. 329· S.D. Fla.· 1995-02-24
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in concluding it lacked authority to deny an exemption based on fraudulent conduct, and that Florida's fraudulent transfer statutes may apply.
• Maduro Travel, Inc. v. Skandinaviska-Enskilda Banken (In Re SeaEscape Cruises Ltd.)
  191 B.R. 944· S.D. Fla.· 1995-02-24
  The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of maritime lien claims, finding that while the bankruptcy court erred in determining it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Maduro Travel was an insider, estopped from claiming liens, and did not rely on the vessels' cred
• Robbins v. Brandt (In re Se. Banking Corp.)
  S.D. Fla.· 1995-02-15
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order granting rehearing and its final judgment, holding that the artwork constituted 'inventory' exempt from ad valorem taxation because it was held for sale in the ordinary course of business.
• Holywell Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. (In Re Holywell Corp.)
  177 B.R. 991· S.D. Fla.· 1995-01-20
  The district court affirmed all five bankruptcy court orders, finding no abuse of discretion or legal error in the bankruptcy court's rulings on motions, judgments, and settlement approvals.
• Levinson v. LHI Holding
  176 B.R. 255· M.D. Fla.· 1994-11-29
  The court held that Bankruptcy Code § 502(b)(7) limits claims for damages from termination of employment contracts to one year's compensation, regardless of whether the contract was executory or the termination predated the bankruptcy filing.
• Farm Credit of Cent. Fla. v. Polk
  160 B.R. 870· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-19
  A prepetition agreement to waive the automatic stay is not automatically binding and requires a showing of cause, such as bad faith or lack of equity and necessity for reorganization, to lift the stay.
• Hyman v. Iowa State Bank (In Re Health Care Prods.
  159 B.R. 332· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-24
  The court held that segregated accounts, titled in the debtor's name and funded by the debtor, remained property of the bankruptcy estate despite a consent decree requiring court supervision for withdrawals, and that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the action seeking declarato
• In re Batie v. Batie
  995 F.2d 85· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-02
  A debtor's debt is nondischargeable if obtained by use of a materially false written financial statement, even if the debtor did not have a subjective intent to deceive, as recklessness in submitting false statements suffices.
• Gidley v. United States (In Re Gidley)
  151 B.R. 952· M.D. Fla.· 1992-11-02
  The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that the Gidleys' 1986 federal income tax liability was not dischargeable because it was a priority claim under the Bankruptcy Code.
• In The Matter of: Jeani Maloy Hill v. Jeani Maloy Hill
  972 F.2d 116· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-14
  A single adult can be the head of a family for Texas rural homestead purposes, entitling them to a 200-acre exemption if dependent family members reside with and rely on them for support.
• Matter of Aquasport, Inc.
  155 B.R. 245· S.D. Fla.· 1992-01-30
  The court held that ITT did not waive its right to setoff and that setoff was not available under Florida law, nor would it be permitted due to an impermissible improvement of position under 11 U.S.C. § 553(b).
• Blackshear v. Layman (In Re Layman)
  131 B.R. 495· M.D. Fla.· 1991-09-06
  A creditor's actual knowledge of a bankruptcy proceeding, even if not formally notified, satisfies the notice requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) for the dischargeability of a debt.
• In re Grand Hotel Ltd. P'ship
  121 B.R. 657· S.D. Fla.· 1990-11-07
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions against the attorney were not clearly erroneous and were supported by the record.
• Barnett v. Sec. Grps. (In re Monetary Group)
  M.D. Fla.· 1990-08-31
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's final judgment, finding that the appellants' actions constituted conversion, unauthorized use of funds, usurpation of partnership opportunity, and violation of fiduciary duties, justifying a constructive trust on the profits.
• Oulman v. Rolling Green, Inc.
  851 F.2d 1032· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-27
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the appellants' claims were barred by res judicata and that the second forfeiture notice was effective.