Merchantable; to be sold or bought.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Court Cases
In Re Head (1980)
The question before this court is whether the lien avoidance provisions of section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 constitutes a taking of property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the question relates to two security agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the Reform Act.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 3-79-00766, 3-79-00863, Adv. Nos. 3-79-0055, 3-79-0056
In Re Elrod (1984)
At issue is the effect of a state court injunction, attachment and order pertaining to a real estate investment account held in the debtor's name. In divorce-related proceedings the state court enjoined the debtor from transferring funds from the account, attached the account and its proceeds, and ordered that funds from the account be applied on a monthly basis to satisfy the debtor's child support obligations as they came due.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-83-01946
In Re Crabtree (1985)In a motion filed May 9, 1985, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) requests the abandonment of property pursuant to 11 U.S.C.A. § 554(b) (West Supp. 1985). By its motion the FDIC seeks to compel the trustee in bankruptcy, D. Broward Craig ("Craig"), to abandon certain rents collected with respect to a commercial property located in LaFollette, Tennessee. At the hearing, FDIC did not offer any testimony or seek to otherwise introduce any evidence. The court did, however, consider [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-83-01116
In Re Boling (1981)This adversary proceeding involves the respective rights of the parties in four trailers. Each trailer is the subject of a lease from defendant, M & J Financial Corporation (M & J) to the debtor, Charles Boling (Boling). The trustee contends that the leases are ones intended for security and that M & J failed to perfect a security interest. M & J contends (1) that on the date of bankruptcy M & J owned the trailers subject to executory contracts with Boling, and (2) that, [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-80-01028, Adv. No. 3-80-0602
In Re Merchants Plaza, Inc. (1983)The question before the court concerns the curative action necessary as a condition to the assumption of a long-term lease by the debtor in possession, 11 U.S.C.A. § 365(b) (1979). The plaintiff lessor contends that the debtor in possession must pay a rental arrearage in full concomitantly with its assumption of the unexpired lease. In contradistinction, the debtor in possession asserts that a contractual agreement amending the lease entitles it to pay the arrearage in installments over the [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-83-00505, Adv. No. 3-83-0391
In Re Mettetal (1984)At issue is whether the debtor, Jerome Thomas Mettetal, a general contractor, owes to either the property owner with whom he contracted for construction of a building or to a supplier of materials on the project nondischargeable debts arising out of false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud, 11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(2)(A) (1979), fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, or embezzlement, 11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(4) (1979), or willful and malicious injury to property, 11 [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-82-01478, Adv. Nos. 3-83-0162, 3-83-0164
In Re Shumate (1984)
At issue is whether a lien impressed by a state court to secure the debtor's support obligations under a divorce decree is void under 11 U.S.C.A. § 506(d)(1) (1979) to the extent that the lien purports to secure post-petition alimony payments.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-83-00809, Adv. No. 3-83-0919
In Re Durham (1983)At issue is the extent of avoidability of defendant's judicial lien against the debtors' homestead. 11 U.S.C.A. § 522(f)(1) (1979). Defendant's judicial lien was a matter of record when the debtors executed a first deed of trust against their homestead in favor of a third party. Nonetheless, the debtors contend the operative effect of Bankruptcy Code § 522(f)(1) advances the priority of the consensual lien-holder vis-a-vis the defendant's judicial lien, concomitantly preserving the debtors' [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-82-01671, Adv. No. 3-83-0120
In Re Sexton (1981)
At issue in this adversary proceeding is whether funds paid pursuant to an insurance policy are proceeds within the meaning of T.C.A. § 47-9-306(1). Also, at issue is whether the funds payable under the insurance policy constitute contract rights in which the secured creditor has a perfected security interest.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-79-00834, Adv. No. 3-81-0704
In Re Butcher (1984)
The question before the court is whether certain records pertaining to property of the debtor's estate are within the protective scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-83-01036
In Re Iler (1982)
This case presents the question of whether funds held by the debtor's former employer pursuant to a deferred compensation plan constitute property of the estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-80-00239
In Re Easterly (1982)
The defendants in this adversary proceeding, on August 17, 1979, purchased real property from the debtors. Defendants failed to record their deed, however, until August 29, 1980, some one and one-half months after the debtors filed a bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 302. The trustee now asserts, as of the date of bankruptcy, legal title and lien creditor status superior to the rights of defendants. 11 U.S.C. § 544. The pertinent facts are not in dispute and may be summarized.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Tennessee Docket: Bankruptcy No. 3-80-00901, Adv. No. 3-80-0502