Search for: "IN RE: B.R." Results 261 - 280 of 1,123
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jun 2007, 11:37 pm
Id.; In re Sierra Steel, Inc., 96 B.R. 271, 274 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1989). [read post]
17 Aug 2006, 3:45 pm
In re Alexander, --- B.R. ----, 2006 WL 2055881(Bakr. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 7:24 am by jameswilson29@gmail.com
Welsch, 457 B.R. 748 (B.A.P. 8th Circuit, 2011), (In re: Mary Lumbar, Case No: 11-6018), the bankruptcy appellate panel for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the “no harm, no foul” rule and held that the debtor ex-wife might have fraudulently transferred property to her parents, even though the property would have been exempt under state law. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 2:34 pm
The 2002 decision in In re Shilo Inn, Diamond Bar, LLC, 285 B.R. 726 (Bankr.D.Or.2002)(Perris, J.) addressed the issue of whether the servicer of mortgage loan pools held by securitized mortgage trusts possessed the power to vote the trusts' claims with respect to the debtors' proposed chapter 11 plan of reorganization or whether the claims could only be voted by the trusts' certificate holders. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 3:39 pm by Jordan Bublick
The court noted that the statute does not define “annuity contracts” and hence it did not find the exemption limited to any particular types of annuity contracts, such as those based on the insurance of human lives.The court in In re Dillon, 166 B.R. 766 (Bankr. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 8:30 am by Jordan Bublick
 www.bublicklaw.com  In the case of In re Moodie, ___ B.R. ___, 2007 WL 738435 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.) [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 7:39 am by Jordan Bublick
 www.bublicklaw.com  The Court in In re Barnes, 378 B.R. 774 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C. 2007) with regard to bonus income of non-filing spouses for the purposes of the calculation of "current monthly income" for the purposes of the determination of projected disposable income. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 7:18 am by Jordan Bublick
In re Gulph Woods Corp., 83 B.R. 339 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1988) and that pre-marked ballots create confusion as a creditor may receive more than one ballot. [read post]
18 May 2009, 8:11 am
Mass 1992); In re Edwards, 228 B.R. 552 (Bankr. [read post]