On appeal, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's July 27, 1983, decision and dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to abide by the court's briefing order

Creditor's objection to discharge was denied because court found no evidence of willful and fraudulent intent or efforts to hinder, delay or defraud creditors; the mistakes in and information omitted from the debtors' schedules appeared to be inadvertent

The district court dismissed the appeal, which alleged that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction. In doing so, the district court noted that the bankruptcy court's formation, with full jurisdiction in the district court, was constitutional

Plaintiff objected to its designation in the debtor's schedules as an unsecured creditor. The court agreed, granting the objection; plaintiff's state court judgment and order of attachment on the debtor's real estate rendered it a secured creditor

On appeal, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order lifting the automatic stay to permit a state court lawsuit against the debtor to go forward, finding elective abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) as enacted in 1984 to be appropriate

District court affirmed ruling that trustee couldn't avoid the debtor's unrecorded assignment of her interest under her father's will because a reasonable purchaser would have investigated and would have found the assignment in the probate records

Creditor was permitted to amend non-dischargeability complaint after deadline for doing so had passed, but only to state its legal theories with more specificity. Creditor was not allowed to make new factual allegations that it could have raised earlier

Creditor's motion for relief from the automatic stay was denied because the debtor had equity in the collateral (a truck), it was insured, and it was necessary to his farming operation. The creditor would not suffer prejudice by being denied stay relief

Bankruptcy Act case regarding dischargeability under section 17(a)(2). The debtor obtained property deeds from the plaintiffs under false pretenses using false representations, so the court found the debt owed to the plaintiffs to be non-dischargeable

The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling that defendant hadn't waived its rights by repeatedly accepting late premium payments from debtor. As a matter of law, the defendant's actions waived its right to treat the policy as cancelled