|
New Cases For the Week of June 11, 2001 - June
15, 2001
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
|
June 15, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
Hutchins
v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Circuit |
Since
the False Claims Act only applies to false bills that cause
economic loss to the government, the submission of false legal
bills to the Bankruptcy Court for approval is not a violation
of the False Claims Act. |
|
|
|
|
June 14, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
US
v. Shelby Daniels
(DBN Subscription Required) |
5th Cir. |
The
bankruptcy fraud statute, which is modeled on the mail fraud
statute, is not void for vagueness. |
In
re Goldenberg
(DBN Subscription Required) |
11th
Circuit |
A
debtor's rights to surrender for cash unmatured single premium
annuity policies are "proceeds of annuity policies,"
exempt under Florida law |
|
|
|
|
June 12, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Parsons
(Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view) |
8th Cir.
BAP |
The
debtor's real estate agent's commission was due when she
produced a ready, willing and able buyer, and was not
contingent on closing. Since all earnest money contracts
were executed prepetition (although some closed postpetition)
the debtor's commission rights were property of the estate.
Since the debtor/real estate agent performed
the services which led to commission rights in conjunction
with 5 other members of her team, she could not claim an
exemption in such commission rights. The exemption is
available only for commissions due for the debtor's personal
services. |
Rein
et. al. v. Providian Financial Corp.
(Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view) |
9th Cir. |
Because
it lacks the force and effect of a court order, a voluntary
reaffirmation agreement cannot form the basis for a preclusive
bar to further actions between the parties to the agreement.
However, dischargeability disputes resolved
through a settlement agreement approved by the Court can form
the basis for a preclusive bar.
The creditor did not violate the stay by
commencing a nondischargeability action in bankruptcy court
against the debtor. The bankruptcy court has exclusive
jurisdiction over 523(c) actions. Moreover, filing an
action in the bankruptcy court presiding over a bankrutpcy
case cannot violate the stay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 11, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Davis
(DBN Subscription Required) |
5th Cir. |
A
discharge in bankruptcy of a debt arising from an
insured debtor's injury to a third party destroys any Stowers
claim (i.e., a claim that the insurance company negligently
failed to promptly settle the third party's claim against the
debtor within policy limits, thereby exposing the debtor to
personal liability beyond the policy limits), since one
element of a Stowers claim is damage to the debtor in
the form of personal liability for damages in excess of the
policy limits. The debtor's discharge eliminates the
possibility of such damages, thereby extinguishing any Stowers
claim.
A tort cause of action in favor of the
debtor which has not fully accrued on the petition date is not
property of the estate. |
In
re Bentz Metal Products
(DBN Subscription Required) |
7th Cir. |
Overturning
a 1999 decision of the a 3-judge panel the 7th Circuit held
that sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947
(29 U.S.C. sec. 185(a)) does not preemept a State law granting
unpaid employees a statutory global priming lien on a debtor's
assets unless the dispute requires interpretation of a
collective bargaining agreement. The mere fact that
resolution of the dispute may necessitate reference to a
collective bargaining agreement does not trigger preemption. |
|
|
|
|
|
|