Summary judgment on dischargeability was denied because the element of justifiable reliance under § 523(a)(2)(A) was a fact question, and because it was unclear from the record whether the debtor owed a fiduciary duty to creditors under § 523(a)(4).
You are here
Opinions
United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS) collection is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to provide public access to opinions from selected United States appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.
The District of Nebraska offers a database of opinions for the years 1997 to current, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
A complaint need only contain facts that, accepted as true, state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff here included facts in the complaint from which he arguably may be able to prove that the defendant is an insider, so dismissal is not warranted.
A state-court personal injury action against two debtors & a non-debtor party can go forward against the debtors because all parties are necessary for a determination of liability. A judgment would be uncollectible unless excepted from discharge.
A state-court personal injury action against two debtors & a non-debtor party can go forward against the debtors because all parties are necessary for a determination of liability. A judgment would be uncollectible unless excepted from discharge.
The court granted the debtor's § 1112(b)(1) motion to dismiss over the objection of an unsecured creditor because the evidence showed a lack of cash flow and the continuing loss or diminution of the estate, as well as no likelihood of rehabilitation.
Summary judgment was denied on allegations that a creditor violated the automatic stay by obtaining a post-petition deed of trust and reaffirmation agreement. Fact questions existed as to whether retroactive stay relief was equitably justified.
Service on an insured depository institution may be addressed to a corporate officer by title, rather than by name. If the creditor has filed a proof of claim and designated a mailing address at which to receive notice, debtor should use that address.
Debtor's unauthorized withdrawal of the entire balance of a joint checking account and nearly all of the funds on a line of credit is non-dischargeable as it caused willful and malicious injury to the joint owner and could be considered embezzlement.
Service on the defendant was deficient because Rule 7004(h) requires an insured depository institution to be served by certified mail addressed to an officer of the institution, unless, as in this case, an attorney has appeared for the defendant.
The court sustained debtor's objection to credit card companies' claims on the basis of the debtor's testimony that he has never had an account with one of the companies and has not used the other account in years and has received no billing statements.