|
New Cases For the Week of August 5, 2002
- August 9, 2002
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
|
August
9, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Payless Cashways
(DBN Subscription Required) |
8th
Cir. BAP |
The
Bankruptcy Court did not err
in reopening bidding for the
sale of an asset of the
debtor. Although a buyer
had entered into a written
contract with the debtor's
broker, the contract was
clearly subject to Court
approval, which had not yet occurred.
Moreover, the bidding
procedure employed by the
broker had not been approved
by the Court. When a
Court has approved a bidding
procedure, a "sliding
scale" test applies with
respect to the Court's
decision to reopen
bidding. However, in
this case that standard was
inapplicable, since the
bidding procedures used were
not noticed to parties in
interest or approved by the
Court. |
In
re Galletti
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th
Cir. |
The
Bankruptcy Court did not err in
disallowing the IRS' proofs of claims
filed against the Chapter 13
debtors/general partners of a partnership
liable for unpaid employment taxes.
The IRS claims were disallowed because (1)
the IRS cannot collect a partnership’s
tax deficiency directly from the partners
without first making individualized
assessments against the partners or
obtaining judgments against the partners
holding them jointly and severally liable
for the partnership’s tax debts; and (2)
the statute of limitations barred the IRS
from making such individual assessments or
obtaining such judgments. |
In
re Miller
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
A
literal application of section
522(f)(2)(A)(ii), produces an
illogical result where a
debtor owns property jointly
with a non-debtor. In
that situation, It is
illogical to net the total
outstanding secured debt
balance attributable to both a
debtor and his joint tenant
against the debtor's one-half
interest in the property alone
because Congress could not
have intended that a debtor
benefit under section
522(f)(2)(A) by the use of
what realistically should be
regarded as someone else's
debt even if the debtor may be
liable personally to the
creditor for the entire debt. |
Operating
System Support, Inc. v. Wang
Laboratories, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
A
sale of contract rights free
and clear does not affect
third party rights arising
under the contract. |
|
|
|
|
August
7, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Banks
(DBN Subscription Required) |
4th
Cir. |
An
adversary proceeding is
required whenever the
dischargeability of a debt
will be determined.
Although the confirmed,
consummated Chapter 13
plan clearly stated that no
interest would accrue on the
debtor's student loan during
the bankruptcy and that upon
completion of the plan the
debtor would be liable only
for the unpaid balance of the
loan, the debtor's failure to
commence an adversary
proceeding to adjudicate the
dischargeability of the
student loan interest caused a
failure of due process
precluding the discharge of
the interest. |
| In
re Watts |
9th
Cir. |
Overruling
its prior opinion in In re Jones, the Court
holds that a judgment creditor who records
a prepetition abstract of judgment against
a declared homestead is entitled to any
equity accruing after the recordation of
the abstract even if no such equity existed
at the time of recordation. |
|
|
|
|
August
6, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
| In
re Bennett |
9th
Cir. |
The
bankruptcy court did not err in refusing
to permit parol evidence to show that the
debtor made a post-discharge agreement to
pay a discharged debt. Even if such
parol evidence had been admitted, an agreement
to pay a discharged debt is not legally
enforceable. State law predating the
Bankruptcy Code permitted the enforcement
of such agreements, even if based solely
on "moral consideration," but
the Bankruptcy Code preempted such State
laws, making enforcement of discharged debts
improper absent a procedurally proper reaffirmation. |
|
|
|
|