Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Court Cases

Search
  1. In Re Korhonen (2003)

    These proceedings came on for a joint trial on June 23, 2003. Gwen Updegraff appeared for the plaintiff. William J. Fisher appeared on behalf of defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation, and Perry Sekus, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared on behalf of defendant United States Department of Education.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 02-50708, Adversary Nos. 03-5011, 03-5017
  2. In Re Hartwick (2006)

    This matter was heard on September 14, 2006, on the United States Trustee's (UST) motion to dismiss the debtor's bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). Michael Ridgeway appeared on behalf of the UST, and John Lamey appeared on behalf of the debtor. Having considered the arguments of counsel, reviewed the briefs, and being fully advised in the matter, the Court now makes this ORDER pursuant to the Federal and Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: 06-31241
  3. In Re Bellanca Aircraft Corp. (1985)

    The above-entitled action came on for trial on April 15, 1985, on Plaintiff's complaint seeking to avoid certain alleged preferential and postpetition transfers under 11 U.S.C. งง 547 and 549, and to equitably subordinate Defendants' claims against the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. ง 510(c)(1). Defendants additionally seek a claim for administrative expenses for certain expenditures occurring postpetition. The parties submitted this matter for my determination based upon the trial [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-81-959, Adv. No. 4-81-323
  4. In Re Khan (1994)

    In re Zubeida Khan, BKY 93-36058, the Court convened an evidentiary hearing on the motion of the Bank of Montreal ("the Bank") on April 21, 1994. The Bank appeared by its attorney, Matthew R. Burton; Debtor Zubeida Khan appeared personally and by her attorney, Dale C. Nathan.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 3-93-6058, 3-94-90
  5. In Re Jolly's, Inc. (1995)

    The Court has entered an amended order to dispose of cross-motions for summary judgment made by the Plaintiff, by Defendants The Norman Vinitsky Residuary Trust ("the Vinitsky Trust"), Shirley Vinitsky, and Sidney Kaplan, and by Defendants Svihel Enterprises, Inc. ("SEI") and James Svihel. As ultimately presented for decision, the motions pertained to Counts I, II, and VI of the Plaintiff's complaint.[1] Pursuant to FED. R.CIV.P. 52(a), as incorporated by FED. R.BANKR.P. 7052, this memorandum [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-94-1110. Adv. No. 3-94-083
  6. In Re Pommerer (1981)

    The above-titled case came regularly on for trial before the undersigned United States Bankruptcy Judge, pursuant to notice. The Complaint seeks an Order lifting the automatic stay of proceedings provided by the Code, Title 11 U.S.C. § 362, to enable plaintiff to proceed pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code to realize upon personal property in which it claims a security interest; seeks a determination that the defendants' obligation to plaintiff is non-dischargeable; and [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 5-80-203, Adv. No. 80-0043
  7. In Re Calstar, Inc. (1993)

    This adversary proceeding came on for hearing on June 8, 1993, on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Thomas J. Lallier and Bradley J. Halberstadt appeared for the plaintiff and William C. Penkethman, Jr. and Steven L. Freeman appeared for the defendant.[1] This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a) and Local Rule 201. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-92-1206, Adv. No. 4-93-19
  8. In Re Ellringer (2007)

    An evidentiary hearing was held on April 27, 2007, Michael R. Fadlovich appeared on behalf of the U.S. Trustee and Barbara J. May appeared on behalf of the debtor. Based on the evidence, I deny the United States Trustee's motion.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: 06-42263
  9. In Re Harstad (1993)

    This adversary proceeding came on for hearing on April 21, 1993, on the defendant's motion to dismiss. Thomas G. Wallrich appeared for the plaintiffs and Daniel C. Beck appeared for the defendant. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a) and Local Rule 201. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-90-869, Adv. No. 4-93-048
  10. In Re Anderson (1987)

    This case came on for hearing on the motion of debtor Allan Anderson to reopen this case under 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 5010. Rockford R. Chrastil appeared for the debtor and Lea M. De Souza appeared on behalf of Robert S.C. Peterson, Inc. in opposition to the motion. Based on the files, records and argument of counsel, I make the following:


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-82-2171
  11. In Re Schmit (1987)

    This proceeding came on for trial on December 5, 1986. Tim D. Wermager appeared for the plaintiff, and Richard J. Pearson appeared for the defendant. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, and Local Rule 103(b). This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(I) and (J). Based on the evidence, arguments of counsel, and the file of this proceeding, I make the following:


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-85-2647, Adv. No. 4-86-48
  12. In Re GN Partners (1985)

    This matter came on for hearing on the motion of the debtor seeking various forms of relief. William I. Kampf appeared for the debtors and John C. Thomas appeared for Roberts Construction, Inc. (Roberts).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-85-342
  13. In Re Cochrane (1995)

    This Chapter 7 (converted from Chapter 11) case came on before the Court on April 18, 1994, for a hearing on the objections of the Trustee and two other creditors to the Debtor's amended claims of exemption. Trustee Brian F. Leonard appeared on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. The Debtor appeared by his attorney, Michael J. Iannacone. Vaquero Investments, Inc. ("Vaquero") appeared by its attorney, Garrett M. Vail. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project appeared by its attorney, William J. Fisher. After [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-93-2056
  14. In Re Photo Mechanical Services, Inc. (1995)

    The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on the 3rd day of November, 1994, on cross motions for summary judgment. Appearances were as follows: Thomas Flynn for the plaintiff, Photo Mechanical Services, Inc. ("Debtor"); and Phillip Bohl and Wayne Walker for the defendant, E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, Inc. ("DuPont").


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-93-5268. Adv. No. 4-94-295
  15. In Re Maronde (2005)

    The above entitled matter came for hearing before the undersigned on November 3, 2005, on the objection of the standing Chapter 13 Trustee to Debtor's claim to exemption and objection to confirmation of Debtor's modified Chapter 13 plan dated October 21, 2005. Appearances were noted on the record. Having heard and considered the evidence and the arguments, I make the following:


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: 05-42535
  16. In Re Atkins (1994)

    On September 30, 1994, the Court entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and granting the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 52(a), as incorporated by FED.R.BANKR.P. 7052, this memorandum sets forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which that order was based.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-93-5344. Adv. No. 3-94-045
  17. In Re Whaley (1999)

    This adversary proceeding came on before the Court for trial. The Plaintiff appeared on behalf of the Debtor's bankruptcy estate. The Defendant appeared by its attorney, Joseph W. Lawver. Upon the evidence adduced at the trial, and the arguments and memoranda of counsel, the Court makes the following:


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 95-33904, Adversary No. 97-3049
  18. In Re Pulos (1994)

    The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on the 19th day of May, 1994, on a motion by Thomas Miller ("trustee"), Timothy Moratzka ("Moratzka") and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association ("Norwest Bank") (collectively "the Movants") for summary judgment. Appearances were as follows: Thomas Miller as and for the trustee; Bradley Halberstadt for Moratzka; Dennis Ryan for Norwest Bank; and Garret Vail for the defendants Gregory Pulos ("Gregory") and Patricia Pulos [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy No. 4-93-4493. Adv. Nos. 4-93-441, 4-93-442 and 4-93-486
  19. In Re Hausladen (1992)

    These Chapter 13 cases came on for hearing on objections by the trustee to several claims. Because the trustee's objections raise the identical issue[1] in each case and because of the importance of the issue, the court is deciding the objections en banc. See Local Rule 109. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a) and Local Rule 201. These are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 4-91-6571, 4-91-6398, 3-91-6802, 3-90-4460 and 3-91-1964
  20. In Re LaPorta (2005)

    This is the third bankruptcy case commenced in this district since October 17, 2005, the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("the Act"). It comes on before the court in chambers, for a consideration of whether the Debtor has met the eligibility requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) — a provision that was added to the Bankruptcy Code by the Act.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota Docket: 05-90784

1 of 35 Page(s)

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