|
New Cases For the Week of September 4, 2001 -
September 7, 2001
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
|
September 7, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
Cusano
v. Klein
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th Cir. |
A
debtor has a duty to prepare schedules carefully, completely,
and accurately. Although there are "no bright-line rules
for how much itemization and specificity is required, a debtor
required to be as particular as is reasonable under the
circumstances. If possible, a debtor was to list the
approximate dollar amount of each asset. If faced with a range
of values, the should choose a value in the middle of
the range. There are assets, however, the value of which is
unknown; when that is the case, a simple statement to that
effect will suffice.
The debtor's scheduling of "songrights"
with an "unknown" value, was sufficient to place
parties in interest on inquiry notice as to the nature, extent
and value of such rights, and to cause the statutory revesting
of such rights when the debtor's plan was confirmed.
However, the debtor was revested only with future economic
entitlements, if any, attendant to such rights.
Prepetition economic entitlements related to the songrights
were accounts receivable or causes of action which are
required to be separately scheduled. Since the debtor
had scheduled no such assets, prepetition entitlements
remained in the estate. |
|
|
|
|
September 5, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Popkins & Stern
(Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in required to view) |
8th Cir.
BAP |
Although
generally a person who is not a party to a proceeding has no
standing to appeal a ruling in the proceeding, where the
non-party has a stake in the outcome of the proceeding, he can
be a "person aggrieved," conferring appellate
standing.
Because the bankruptcy trustee did not make
a former partner of the debtor a party to an execution
proceeding against the former partner's wife, and the former
partner did not intervene or otherwise appear in the
proceeding against the wife, the bankruptcy court lacked
personal jurisdiction over the former partner in the
proceeding against the wife, and the court erred in issuing
orders in that proceeding as to the former partner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |