Entries categorized as ‘cir 7’
In re Timothy Stirneman, 09 B 20315
Timothy Stirneman v. Audrey Stirneman, 09 A 00556
Issued November 4, 2009
Judge Jack B. Schmetterer
Summary: In the case at hand, Parties entered a Term Sheet Agreement with regards to shared office space; each was to pay 50% of certain shared expenses. Defendant had not fulfilled her part of the agreement. Since the parties were intended to be personally liable, the Court has found Defendant personally liable for the unpaid shared expenses. Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to relief against Defendant’s transfer of funds for new personal office equipment because Defendant acted so as to defraud Plaintiff. The Court therefore has decided that a preliminary injunction against Defendant is warranted.
View and download the opinion in PDF format here.
Categories: ED · IL · ND · adversary · bankruptcy · ch 13 · ch 7 · cir 7 · consumer · current-events · individual · opinion · schmetterer
In re Dorsie Wayne Mosher, Jr., 06 B 71261
William T. Neary, US Trustee, v. Mosher, 07 A 96013
Issued: November 4, 2009
By Judge: Manuel Barbosa
Summary: The Court ruled in favor of the U.S. Trustee by denying the Debtor’s petition to discharge. Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), the Court must grant discharge to the debtor unless the debtor intentionally hindered, delayed, or defrauded a creditor or Trustee. Debtor knowingly failed to list his income and admitted to making a conscious decision to list only certain debts in his petition. The Court finds that the Debtor “knowingly and fraudulently made false oaths” and thus should be denied a discharge under Section 727(a)(4)(A).
View and download the opinion in PDF format here.
In re Jody R. Deutscher and Kelly C. Deutscher, 08 B 73603
Issued: October 28, 2009
By Judge: Manuel Barbosa
Summary: The Court granted U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss. Under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1), the Court may dismiss a case in which the debts are primarily consumer debts, if the granting of relief is tantamount to abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7. The Debtors fall under two applicable provisions: 1. Debtors purchased luxuries on credit on the eve of bankruptcy 2. Debtors’ budget is “excessive or unreasonable.” As the Court found, The Debtors want to continue a lifestyle of luxury, purchasing a yacht and boat, “even after seeking a bankruptcy discharge by reaffirming their debt on these luxury items rather than […] do some belt tightening.”
View and download the opinion in PDF format here.
In re Joseph M. Phelan and Mary M. Phelan, 09 B 70398
Issued: October 28, 2009
By Judge: Manuel Barbosa
Summary: Under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause, creditors have the right to “reasonable notice” when being listed as a creditor in bankruptcy petitions. Creditor Employee Benefits Security Administration (ESBA) did not learn of Debtor’s intent to file for bankruptcy until at east two months after the date required by Fed. R. Bank. P. 4007(c). Furthermore, Debtors failed to list EBSA on their bankruptcy petition. Therefore the Court has granted the Secretary of Labor leave to file an adversary complaint for determination of dischargeability.
View and download the opinion in PDF format here.
Categories: 707 · 727 · IL · ND · UST · WD · adversary · bankruptcy · barbosa · ch 13 · ch 7 · chapter 7 · cir 7 · consumer · current-events · discharge · dismissal · individual
In re Griffin Trading Company, Inc., 98 B 41742
Leroy G. Inskeep, Trustee v. Farrel and Roger Griffin, 01 A 00007
Opinion: In an Adversary case stemming from the Chapter 7 bankruptcy of a futures broker, judgement for Trustee is reversed due to lack of sufficient causation following remand from the District Court.
Opinion Issued October 30, 2009
By the Honorable Bruce W. Black
View and download the opinion in PDF format here
Categories: ED · IL · Inskeep · ND · adversary · assets · black · business filings · case update · ch 7 · cir 7 · current-events · judge · property · research · trustee
Chapter 7 and 11 Calls
Effective immediately new motions to be heard after Oct. 12 should be noticed for Tue or Wed at 9:30 a.m.
Effectivethe week of Oct. 5 motions and set matters to be heard that week will be set for Thu, Oct. 8.
Effective the week of Oct. 12 J. Wedoff will begin hearing cases on Tuesdays and Wednesdays [regular schedule]. New motions, status hearings, or other set matters now scheduled for a Tue or Wed after Oct. 12 will be heard on the Tue or Wed on which they are scheduled.
Any motion already noticed for a Thu after Oct. 12 will still be heard as set noticed unless movant chooses to re-notice for a Tue or Wed after Oct. 12.
Chapter 13 Call
Judge Doyle will continue to hear Judge Wedoff’s Chapter 13 call on Thursdays at the regularly scheduled times until further notice.
Thank you for your cooperation during the last month in rescheduling Judge Wedoff’s Chapter 7 and 11 matters for Thursdays
To view and download this information in pdf format click here
Categories: ED · IL · ND · administrative · adversary · business filings · call · case update · ch 11 · ch 13 · ch 7 · cir 7 · current-events · data · doyle · filings · notice · opinion · schedule · wedoff · work
To use PACER/RACER you must now agree to be bound by the following redaction policy (Rule 9037. Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court)
Rule 9037. Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court
a) REDACTED FILINGS. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing made with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual, other than the debtor, known to be and identified as a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only:
(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual’s birth;
(3) the minor’s initials; and
(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.
b) EXEMPTIONS FROM THE REDACTION REQUIREMENT. The redaction requirement does not apply to the following:
(1) a financial-account number that identifies the property allegedly subject to forfeiture in a forfeiture proceeding;
(2) the record of an administrative or agency proceeding unless filed with a proof of claim;
(3) the official record of a state-court proceeding;
(4) the record of a court or tribunal, if that record was not subject to the redaction requirement when originally filed;
(5) a filing covered by subdivision (c) of this rule; and
(6) a filing that is subject to § 110 of the Code.
c) FILINGS MADE UNDER SEAL. The court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction. The court may later unseal the filing or order the entity that made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record.
d) PROTECTIVE ORDERS. For cause, the court may by order in a case under the Code:
(1) require redaction of additional information; or
(2) limit or prohibit a nonparty’s remote electronic access to a document filed with the court.
e) OPTION FOR ADDITIONAL UNREDACTED FILING UNDER SEAL. An entity making a redacted filing may also file an unredacted copy under seal. The court must retain the unredacted copy as part of the record.
f) OPTION FOR FILING A REFERENCE LIST. A filing that contains redacted information may be filed together with a reference list that identifies each item of redacted information and specifies an appropriate identifier that uniquely corresponds to each item listed. The list must be filed under seal and may be amended as of right. Any reference in the case to a listed identifier will be construed to refer to the corresponding item of information.
g) WAIVER OF PROTECTION OF IDENTIFIERS. An entity waives the protection of subdivision (a) as to the entity’s own information by filing it without redaction and not under seal.
Categories: 9037 · Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. · IL · ND · bankruptcy · ch 11 · ch 13 · ch 7 · cir 7 · consumer · current affairs · current-events · data · filings · individual · legislation · notice · opinion · research · right to privacy
