At trial, the court found that the plaintiffs had not carried the burden of establishing non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) because there was no evidence that the debtor or anyone on his behalf made a fraudulent misrepresentation to them.
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.
JC & Betty L. Bailey v. Jon P. Pierce (In re Pierce), Ch. 7, BK06-80726-TJM, A06-8098-TJM 06/12/2009
The evidence did not support the position of the Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services that its claim against the debtor wife for the cost of her husband's medications after his treatment at a state facility was a domestic support obligation.
The debt at issue, based on a promissory note signed post-confirmation, was a post-petition obligation and was not subject to discharge. The automatic stay did not prohibit the plaintiff from attempting to collect the debt via a state court lawsuit.
A plethora of factual and legal issues precluded a decision on the debtors' motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay with regard to a post-petition state-court lawsuit and temporary injunction entered against the debtors.
Defendants who operated as debtors in possession improperly bid at foreclosure sale of estate property, which under the circumstances breached their fiduciary duty. No sanctions, beyond extreme disappointment, were imposed on debtors' counsel.
In order to accommodate settlement agreements made between the debtor and various liability insurers, the court deferred the creditors' committee's motion to dissolve an injunction prohibiting personal injury litigation against the debtor.
A factual issue existed as to whether Article 9 U.C.C. financing statements were "seriously misleading" when it was unclear whether a records search using debtor's legal name in the filing office's search logic would find the financing statement.
The court authorized the appointment of an attorney experienced in personal injury litigation as an expert to estimate the value of personal injury claims against the debtor and prepare a non-binding recommendation for bankruptcy purposes only.
The garnishment of debtor's pay couldn't be avoided as a preference because the amount didn't meet § 547(c)(8)'s monetary threshold regardless of whether the transfer occurred on the date wages were earned or the date they were paid to the creditor.
The debtors and two lenders disputed the amount owed on the lenders’ claims. The claims were ultimately determined, along with an amount for administrative expenses. The amounts were final, and debtors’ motion for new trial should have been denied.