Bankruptcy Rule 9024

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

• In re Met-L-Wood Corp. v. Pipin
  861 F.2d 1012· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trustee's suit was barred by res judicata and collateral attack, and his motion to vacate the sale under Rule 60(b) was untimely and did not fall under the 'fraud upon the court' exception.
• Hendrick v. H.E. Avent
  891 F.2d 583· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the appellant's claims constituted an improper collateral attack on a final bankruptcy court judgment and were barred by res judicata, as the appellant had the opportunity to litigate these claims in the original bankruptcy proceeding.
• In re Colley v. Nat'l Bank OF Tex.
  814 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the debtor's motions for reconsideration of allowed claims, as the motions did not meet the standards for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
• Francine Klingman v. Levinson
  877 F.2d 1357· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 14×
  A bankruptcy court can use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct an omission in a prior judgment to reflect its original intent that the entire state court judgment, including pre-petition interest, was nondischargeable.
• In re Whitney-Forbes, Inc.
  770 F.2d 692· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the trustee's claims to set aside the 1973 patent sale were either untimely or unsupported by evidence.
• In re Corey v. Herbert H.K. Loui
  892 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the 1971 transaction was a sale, not a mortgage, and affirmed the district court's findings regarding ownership, plan confirmation, and other related matters.
• In re Harvard M. JEE v. The Hanil Bank
  799 F.2d 532· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in amending its dismissal order under Rule 60(a) to clarify that the dismissal was intended to be without prejudice.
• In re Lenox v. Lenox
  902 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while bankruptcy courts have equitable power to modify stipulations in family farm cases, they must make findings of special circumstances and take steps to restore the other party to their original position.
• In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park
  943 F.2d 261· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's conflicting orders require remand for further factual development, but good faith purchasers should be protected from liens reimposed by a later decree.
• In re Zimmerman v. Zimmerman
  869 F.2d 1126· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to revoke a bankruptcy discharge was not an abuse of discretion, as the movant failed to explain her failure to utilize available bankruptcy procedures.
• ST. Croix Hotel Corp. v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands
  867 F.2d 169· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the settlement agreement with the Bureau of Internal Revenue did not bind the Department of Finance, and that the district court had jurisdiction to determine tax liabilities based on issue preclusion and the integrated nature of bankruptcy jurisdiction in the
• Acute, Inc. v. ECI Pharms., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-18
  The Court dismissed Acute's appeal of the Sale Order as untimely and its appeal of the Order Denying Reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was not a final order and lacked grounds for interlocutory appeal.
• The Est. of Ronald Charles Lada v. 206 Golden, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-03
  The appeal is dismissed because the appellant lacks standing to challenge the order approving counsel's employment and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider arguments about the source of payment for the counsel's fees.
• Clausen v. Remick
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-02-05
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the appellants' case and denied their motion for reconsideration, affirming the bankruptcy court's decision.
• In re Cisneros v. United States
  994 F.2d 1462· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-08
  A bankruptcy court may vacate a discharge order entered due to a mistake of fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 9024, even if the mistake originated with the trustee, provided the motion is filed within a reasonable time.
• In re Midway P'rs v. Ocie F. Murray, Jr.
  995 F.2d 490· 4th Cir.· 1993-06-01
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in valuing the collateral, but erred in denying the RTC's second unsecured claim because the first loan's principal and interest consumed the collateral's value, leaving the second loan unsecured.
• In re NEW Concept Hous., Inc. v. Arl W. Poindexter, Jr.
  951 F.2d 932· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-20
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's failure to provide notice of a settlement hearing to the debtor was a denial of due process and not harmless error, even though the debtor was not represented by counsel.
• In re Hughes v. Lieberman
  873 F.2d 262· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-17
  The court held that the debtor should be given an opportunity to present organized financial records to determine if denial of discharge is appropriate, applying equitable principles.