Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Court Cases

Search
  1. In Re Saturley (1991)

    Pending are the Chapter 7 debtors' former counsels' fee application and the trustee's responsive motion seeking a determination that the fees presently sought, and those previously paid, are excessive. For the reasons set forth below, the fee application is disapproved, with exceptions for certain, limited reimbursement requests; and the applicant is ordered to surrender a portion of its pre-petition fees and all unapplied retainer funds to the trustee.[1]


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 91-10072
  2. In Re Slosberg (1998)

    Plaintiff Dennis McAlister contends that his pre-bankruptcy state court judgment against Defendant Richard Slosberg, his former attorney, determined all issues pertinent to his averments that Slosberg's obligations to him are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6). Slosberg, a Chapter 7 debtor, asserts that the state court judgment does not carry preclusive effect in this dischargeability action because it was entered by default.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 97-20908, Adversary No. 97-2071
  3. In Re KP Enterprise (1992)

    On June 25, 1991, Richard W. Belisle ("Belisle"), a former owner of KP Enterprise ("KP"), filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against it. KP timely responded, seeking dismissal and damages and asserting that Belisle, as a solitary petitioner, could not commence an involuntary proceeding because its creditors numbered more than twelve.[1] KP also filed a counterclaim alleging Belisle's breach of an indemnity agreement regarding certain workers' compensation insurance premium obligations.

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 91-10521
  4. In Re Kopf (2000)

    Before me on a stipulated record is Inger Kopf's request that the educational loans she owes to the United States Department of Education (the "Department") be discharged pursuant to § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Ms. Kopf has not demonstrated that excepting her student loan obligation from discharge will subject her to undue hardship within the meaning of § 523(a)(8). Therefore, the loans will not be discharged.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 99-10178. Adversary No. 99-1038
  5. In Re Hobbs (1997)

    This adversary proceeding was brought by Peter C. Fessenden, Esq., Harrison and Deborah Hobbs's former chapter 13 trustee, against David Ireland, Jr., d/b/a Penobscot Paralegal Services, for violations of Bankruptcy Code § 110 in connection with Ireland's preparation of their Chapter 13 petition and related documents.[1]


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 96-10649, Adversary No. 96-1058
  6. In Re Goldstein (1996)

    The defendants' pending motion to dismiss challenges this court's subject matter jurisdiction over three counts of the plaintiff/debtor's complaint. Although the defendants acknowledge jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay (Count I) and discharge injunction (Count II), they contend jurisdiction does not exist over those counts alleging post-petition violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (F.D.C.P.A.) (Count III), seeking costs and fees under [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 95-10656, Adversary No. 96-1030
  7. In Re Maylin (1993)

    Dwight Maylin's Chapter 13 plan is before the court for confirmation. Sherman, Sandy & Lee, his former counsel in pre-petition divorce proceedings and, presently, a judgment creditor, has objected. The plan and objection raise issues under 11 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 522,[1] under Fed. R.Bankr.P. 3006 and 4003(b) and under the law as articulated by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992). For the reasons set forth below I conclude [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 92-10168
  8. In Re Shape, Inc. (1992)

    Presently before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff William A. Brandt, Jr. ("Trustee") for leave of court to amend the complaint in this pending adversary proceeding. The original complaint contained various counts against Defendants Anthony L. Gelardi ("ALG") and Paul J. Gelardi ("PJG").[1] The amended complaint asserts additional claims against the Defendants, including preferential and fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 548, respectively. Both Defendants have objected to [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 88-20388, 88-20389, Adv. No. 91-2070
  9. Corinna M. Echaure (2008)

    This confirmation contest, submitted for decision on a stipulated record, calls for construction of the so-called "hanging paragraph," added to Bankruptcy Code § 1325(a)(9) by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer. Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).[1] The critical issue is whether a creditor holding a security interest in a motor vehicle, who otherwise comes within the "anti-bifurcation" protection of the hanging paragraph, is entitled to that protection if its lien secures a debt [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: 07-20355
  10. In Re Marquis (1997)

    Before the court on stipulated facts are plaintiff Monica Marquis' claims that certain divorce-related obligations owed her by debtor Russell Marquis are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5) or § 523(a)(15) of the Code.[1] For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that some of the obligations in dispute are non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(5) because they are in the nature of alimony or support, but the balance will be discharged because the plaintiff has not demonstrated [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 96-10329, Adversary No. 96-1040
  11. In Re Shape, Inc. (1992)

    Shape, Inc. ("Shape") filed a Chapter 11 petition on November 7, 1988. At that time, Shape had been purchasing guide pins for many years for its video operation from Swisstronics, Inc. ("Swisstronics"), the manufacturer. As of the date of filing, Shape owed Swisstronics approximately $93,870.00.[1] The contract between Swisstronics and Shape at that time called for a purchase price of approximately $13.00 per thousand. Shortly thereafter, Swisstronics increased its price to approximately $21.00 [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 88-20388, 88-20390, Adv. No. 90-2097
  12. In Re Mastromarino (1996)

    Before me is the U.S. Trustee's § 707(b) motion seeking dismissal of Dr. Joseph Mastromarino's voluntary Chapter 7 case. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that to provide Mastromarino the relief he seeks would be a "substantial abuse" of Chapter 7's provisions and therefore will grant the motion.[1]


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 95-10608
  13. In Re Moore (1999)

    Before me for decision after trial is Barbara Moore's adversary complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief against Samuel Jencks, a non-attorney bankruptcy petition preparer. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Jencks must show cause why he should not be fined for violating § 110(f)'s prohibition on advertising his services using terms similar to "legal"; that Jencks's actions warrant certification to district court for an award of damages, fees, and costs pursuant to § [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 98-10075, Adversary No. 98-1053
  14. In Re Baietti (1995)

    In this adversary proceeding, Bombardier Capital, Inc., ("Bombardier"), seeks a determination that certain obligations owed to it by Richard Baietti ("Baietti" or "debtor") are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Baietti's debt to Bombardier in the amount of $25,107.30 is excepted from discharge.[2]


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 94-10166. Adv. No. 94-1065
  15. In Re Tardiff (1992)

    On March 3, 1992, this court, having reopened Mark T. Tardiff's long-closed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, denied his motion to revoke his Chapter 7 discharge and convert to Chapter 13. Tardiff could not establish grounds for relief from his September 14, 1988, discharge under F.R.Bankr.P. 9024 and F.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Thus, conversion to Chapter 13 would serve no purpose. In re Tardiff, 137 B.R. 83 (Bankr.D.Me.1992) (hereafter Tardiff I).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 88-10174
  16. In Re Warren (1993)

    This adversary proceeding, here on removal from state court, presents the question whether the debtor's consensual, divorce-related obligation to pay a portion of his children's post-secondary schooling expenses is "in the nature of support" within the meaning of § 523(a)(5)(B) and, thus, whether it survives his September 22, 1988, Chapter 7 discharge. After receiving evidence at trial and the parties' post-trial briefs, I conclude that it does.[1]


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 88-10135, Adv. No. 93-1043
  17. In Re Crescent Beach Inn, Inc. (1982)

    The debtor, Crescent Beach Inn, Inc., is a corporation in the hotel and restaurant business. It owns an ocean-front Inn containing fifteen overnight rooms, a main dining area, function room and two bars, plus several cabins rented on a yearly basis.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 182-00194, (Formerly 282-00112)
  18. In Re DN Associates (1994)

    Following successful appellate defense of this court's August 20, 1992, fee awards, Norman, Hanson & DeTroy ("NH & D"), the debtor's counsel, and the Pilot Group ("Pilot"), the debtor's financial advisor, filed supplemental fee applications seeking fees and expenses associated with the appeals and interest on their approved fees. Casco Northern Bank, N.A. ("Casco") and Second Maine Realty Corporation ("Second Maine") object.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 91-20417
  19. In Re Langley (1982)

    The debtor on January 13, 1982 filed an amended Schedule, in which he claimed exemptions in a 1978 Ford Bronco motor vehicle and in a Massey Ferguson Garden Tractor pursuant to Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 14, § 4422(16). The trustee filed an objection to the claimed exemption in the Bronco on January 28, 1982, and to the claimed exemption in the tractor on February 1, 1982. A hearing was held on April 5th, at which counsel agreed to submit an Agreed Statement of Facts and briefs.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: Bankruptcy No. 181-00391, Adv. No. C182-0023
  20. In Re Woodman (2003)

    Before me are two Chapter 13 plans. As to each, no party contends that § 1325's[1] confirmation requirements are unmet, with one exception. Evergreen Credit Union, an undersecured creditor in each case, argues that the debtors have not satisfied § 1325(b)(1)(B)'s mandate that they devote all their projected "disposable income" to their plans for at least three years.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine Docket: 02-20273, No. 02-20323

1 of 16 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5