New Bankruptcy Cases - August 7, 2000 - August 11, 2000

New Cases For the Week of August 7, 2000 - August 11, 2000

Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet AND BKCLAIMS Marketplace - The Online Market For Bankruptcy Claims

Copyright © 2000 [BKinformation.com]. All rights reserved.

August 11, 2000
Case	Court	Holding

In re Pletz	9th Cir.	When valuing an Oregon debtor's interest in property owned with his wife as a tenant by the entirety, the bankruptcy court must give account to the fact that, from an actuarial standpoint, the debtor's nondebtor spouse will live seven years longer than the debtor thereby rendering her tenancy by the entirety interest more valuable than the debtor's. However, where both spouse are still living and using the property jointly, the court is required to use joint-life actuarial tables, rather than single-life actuarial tables, to calculate the value of such differential.
In re Roosevelt	9th Cir.	A good faith transferee may not assert the "good faith transferee for value" defense to a fraudulent transfer action if the subject transfer is also avoidable under 11 USC 547. The nonavoidability of an alleged fraudulent transfer under 11 USC 544, 545 or 547 is an element of a cause of action under 11 USC 548 ("Given that by the terms of the statute, the bankruptcy court had to assure itself that the transfer of the Glendora real property could not be avoided under S 547 before allowing Judy to set off any value she gave against Steven's fraudulently conveyed property, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not exceed the scope of the mandate and did not allow Ray to raise abandoned claims when it considered S 547.") A husband and wife may transmute their community property to separate property, but if the transfer is effected by one spouse with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, the other spouse may not retain the the transmuted property, except to the extent that she: (i) was a good faith transferee and (ii) gave value the property she received. A spouse who "transfers" her community property interest in her spouse's separate property medical practice in exchange for the husband's community property interest in other marital property has not given value, since she never owned a cognizable interest in the husband's separate property.
In re Hatton	9th Cir.	A Substitute For Return prepared by the Internal Revenue Service without the debtor/taxpayer's assistance is not a "return" for the the purpose of 11 USC 523(a)(1), even when the debtor later executes and partially performs an installment agreement acknowledging the liability. A "return," for the purposes of 11 USC 523(a)(1), must: (i) purport to be a return, (ii) contain sufficient data to allow calculation of tax, (iii) be signed under penalty of perjury and (iv) represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law. A debtor's belated cooperation with the Internal Revenue Service in executing an installment agreement does not constitute an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law.

August 10, 2000
Case	Court	Holding

Puget Sound National Bank v. Ferguson	Wash. Crt. Appeals	A Chapter 7debtor who fails to schedule his lender liability counterclaims against a bank is estopped from pursuing such claims postdischarge.
Carey v. Carey	Indiana Crt. Appelas	Although a State court has jurisdiction to adjudicate dischargeability of a debt under 11 USC 523(a)(5) (alimony/support obligations), it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dischargeability of the same debt under 11 USC 523(a)(15).

August 9, 2000
Case	Court	Holding

In re Kadjevich	9th Cir.	A debtor's postpetition breach of a postpetition, Court-approved, settlement agreement resolving a prepetition claim does not give rise to an administrative claim. Although the settlement and debtor's conduct (i.e., the breach) occurred postpetition, these events nevertheless related to the prepetition claim, thereby precluding administrative priority status.
In re Smith	9th Cir.	When a creditors' meeting is "adjourned until further notice," the 30-day period within which objections to exemptions must be filed does not begin to run until the time, if any, that the adjourned meeting is reconvened and concluded. A debtor who objects to the delay this causes in ascertaining the final status of exemptions has the burden of bringing a motion to require completion of the creditors' meeting on the grounds that the United States Trustee is abusing her discretion. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 704.115(a), which creates an exemption for "private retirement plans," does not exempt a debtor's interest in a limited partnership allegedly intended to fund the debtor's retirement. An interest in a limited partnership is not generally a "retirement plan." The language of § 704.115 "does not extend to protect anything a debtor unilaterally chooses to claim as intended for retirement purposes."

August 8, 2000
Case	Court	Holding

In re Peterson	8th Cir. BAP	Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it reduced debtor's counsel's fees for excessiveness.

August 7, 2000
Case	Court	Holding

In re CPDC	5th Cir.	Dismissal of a legal action is a harsh sanction reserved for extreme circumstances. Appellant's failure to timely file statement of issues on appeal in bankruptcy appeal did not warrant dismissal of the appeal when appellant timely filed appellate brief and otherwise complied with applicable rules.
In re Spirtos	9th Cir.	The ten-year period within which a judgment must be renewed under California law is extended for the period of time during which the automatic stay is in effect plus 30 days.

Home Cases Covered Contact Us Links Bankruptcy News

Visitor No. Hit Counter
This page was last edited on 04/08/2002