After selling his business to
Evapco, Mr. Peterson continued to work for Evapco subject to a non-compete
agreement. Despite this, Mr. Peterson
formed other entities which Evapco asserted violated such agreement and
defrauded Evapco. Evapco brought suit in
Maryland, with the court there entering a default judgment as a sanction against
Mr.
The Randles fell behind on their car payments and Saga Auto Sales repossessed the Randles’ 2011 Cadillac Escalade. Upon payment of $2,100, Saga returned the vehicle on December 2, 2017. With their next payment due on December 9, 2017, the Randles filed Chapter 13 on December 8, 2017. Saga again repossessed the vehicle on December 10, 2018, also taking possession of Ms.
On remand from the 4th Circuit, where Jason McDonald and MDC first raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court held that the actual debtor in this case held an ownership interest in MDC, such was, even under the broad “related to” jurisdiction, insufficient to allow the bankruptcy court to determine what assets were owned by that corporate entity. Otherwise:
Under such an expansive interpretation of “related to” jurisdiction, if a debtor owned a single share of a corporation
Even though the Debtors admitted that they did not meet th venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1408, the bankruptcy court held that Rule 1014 required dismissal or transfer of a case filed in an improper district only on the filing of “timely” objection by a party in interest. Here, First New York Federal Credit Union did not object to venue until after the §341 Meeting of Creditors, payments had been collected through wage garnishment, and a proposed plan was pending, and then only on the 2nd to last day to object to Confir
Summary:
In their Chapter 7, the Youngs agreed, in a court approved settlement, to allow the sale of their residence, splitting the net proceeds equally with the Trustee and were to keep “only those furnishings necessary to furnish their new residence”, with the remainder of their personal property to be auctioned. After initially identifying the property they were to retain with the Trustee’s auctioneer, the Young sold all of their additional property with a different auction company, using the funds to pay for moving costs. It appears that the
Summary:
Mr. Barth commenced an adversary proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment that various state court actions by Mr. Spoor could have been brought by the bankruptcy trustee, who had previously signed a release of such actions, and that Mr. Spoor should be required to dismiss those actions. The bankruptcy court instead dismissed Mr. Barth’s adversary proceeding on the grounds that such relief was prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The bankruptcy court declined, however, to award the sanctions sought by Mr.
Summary:
Ms. Calloway divorced Mr. Bowles and shortly before a final judgment was entered in their equitable distribution proceeding, she filed Chapter 13. Just prior to Ms. Calloway’s bankruptcy filing, the state court judge circulated a preliminary ruling to the parties via email, stating that he believed an unequal distribution of the marital assets in favor of Mr. Bowles would be equitable and that Ms.
