Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Court Cases

Search
  1. Cory S. Austin and Lucinda Hill Austin (2007)

    This case presents questions of first impression in this District concerning Chapter 13 plan confirmation requirements for above-median debtors under section 1325(b), as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). The Trustee in this case has objected to confirmation of the Debtors' plan, asserting that: (1) the Debtors are not devoting all of their projected disposable income to the plan; (2) the Debtors' payments on a backhoe lease — a payment [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: 07-10031
  2. In Re Hess (2006)

    The above referenced debtors each filed a bankruptcy petition without the required proof of pre-petition credit counseling. The plain language of the Bankruptcy Code's new eligibility provisions appears to mandate dismissal of the cases. However, there are extraordinary circumstances present that beg the question of whether dismissal is mandatory. The Court determines whether, under the totality of the circumstances presented, it has discretion to allow the cases to proceed, notwithstanding the [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: 06-10068, 06-10026
  3. In Re Kelton Motors Inc. (1990)

    J. McNally, III, Teachout, Brooks, Moore & McNally, Norwich, Vt., J. Bodoff, Kaye, Fialkow, Richmond & Rothstein, Boston, Mass., for United Sav. Acceptance Corp. (USAC), Dartmouth Banking Co. (Dartmouth) and McNamara Motors, Inc. (McNamara), (collectively defendants).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 89-00255, Adv. No. 89-0019
  4. In Re Mayo (1990)

    This adversary proceeding[3] is before us on Midlantic's complaint to determine the validity, extent, and priority of conflicting security interests in a Boat. The complaint, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses allege inequitable conduct, negligence, and fraud. We hold that BWAC[4] has a first priority interest in the Boat. We do not equitably subordinate any claims because the conduct of all parties does not justify its application.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 86-146, Adv. No. 86-00042
  5. In Re Shebel (1985)

    Plaintiff, Oakes Brothers, Inc., an unsecured creditor, objects to the discharge of the debtors, Mr. and Mrs. Shebel, because they omitted in their Chapter 7 petition a loan secured by a mortgage on their real estate. The sole issue before the Court is whether the debtors' having knowingly omitted this one creditor on the petition, by itself, amounts to a false oath or account in derogation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), warranting the denial of discharge. We hold, on the facts of this case, [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 84-00207, Adv. No. 85-0038
  6. In Re Blaise (1990)

    This matter[1] is before us on Trustee's objection to Debtors' proposed amendment and claim of exemptions. Debtors move to amend Schedules B-2, B-3, and B-4 to include their interest in pre-petition auction proceeds as exempt property. Debtors also claim as exempt two bank accounts and three vehicles[2] not originally listed in Schedules B-2 and B-4. Trustee objects because Debtors did not list the preference action the trustee subsequently brought to recover the auction proceeds in their [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 89-00152
  7. Walter C Munzberg and Marilyn Munzberg (2008)

    The Court is called upon to decide the extent to which the claim of Daimler-Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC (the "Creditor") is protected from bifurcation and cramdown in chapter 13, as a claim secured by a purchase money security interest ("PMSI"), where the claim includes not only the purchase price of a motor vehicle but also the purchase of gap insurance and a service contract, and "negative equity"[1] on a trade-in vehicle. This question, arising in the context of an objection to [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: 07-10560
  8. In Re Ford (1989)

    The Trustee seeks to recover an alleged preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)[2] from the Debtors to the Credit Union. The Credit Union does not dispute that it received a preferential transfer. The Credit Union's concession satisfies the Trustee's burden under 11 U.S.C. § 547(g) "of proving the avoidability of a transfer under subsection (b) of this section," id., and establishes the elements of a preferential transfer under § 547(b) by the prerequisite preponderance of the [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 88-00168, Adv. No. 88-0043A
  9. In Re Rule (1983)

    On May 24, 1983, the debtor filed a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (Code). On May 27, 1983, the debtor filed a statement of financial affairs. On Schedule B-4 of his statement of financial affairs, the debtor claimed as exempt property a 1970 Ford "wrecker". On June 30, 1983, the debtor moved to amend Schedule B-4 to claim as exempt property a 1976 Honda motorcycle.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 83-108, Adv. No. 83-0084
  10. In Re Kelton Motors, Inc. (1991)

    This matter is before us[1] for pretrial determination of the appropriate standard of proof to be applied under 11 U.S.C. § 547, 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2), and a fraudulent conveyance action under 9 Vt.Stat. Ann. § 2281.[2]


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 89-00255, Adv. Pro. No. 90-00024A
  11. In Re STN Enterprises, Inc. (1987)

    The debtor filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on May 29, 1984. Steven M. Gates, debtor's co-counsel, has submitted a final application for legal fees. The attorney for the creditors' committee objects to this application because, in his view, the documentation is inadequate, the pre-petition services listed were not sufficiently connected to the filing of the petition, and the applicant duplicated the services of debtor's local counsel.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 84-98
  12. In Re Lehman (1998)

    Debtor Claude Lehman filed a complaint against Creditor New York State Higher Education Services Corporation seeking the discharge of his student loan debt. The issue before us is whether excepting the student loan debt from Chapter 7 discharge imposes an undue hardship on Debtor so as to warrant discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B). The parties have crossmoved[1] for summary judgment[2] on the complaint. We find the student loan to be nondischargeable because Debtor is unable to satisfy [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 96-10086FGC, Adversary No. 97-1009
  13. In Re Brent (1987)

    This proceeding poses the narrow question whether a debtor who erroneously believes he is prohibited by a Court Order from returning to his homestead has abandoned this homestead. Because abandonment must be a voluntary act, we hold that a debtor who is absent under compulsion, whether actual or misapprehended, has not relinquished his right to the homestead.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 86-135
  14. In Re Fibermark, Inc. (2007)

    In this matter, the Court is presented with an issue of first impression in this District: Does this Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute that arose after a chapter 11 case was closed, where the dispute relates to an agreement approved by the Court, and that agreement, the plan, and the confirmation order all contained specific jurisdiction-retention language? And, if so, should the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, reopen the case to adjudicate the dispute? Having analyzed [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: 04-10463
  15. Melissa Willette (2008)

    Two Creditors, S.T. Griswold & Company and LTS Homes, Inc. (the "Creditors"), object to the Debtor's Second Amended Plan on the ground that the Debtor is not devoting all of her monthly disposable income to her plan (doc. # 93). In particular, the Creditors contend that the Debtor had no interest in her homestead property (the "Property") on the day she filed her chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and therefore she had no right to deduct her mortgage payment as a monthly expense on the [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: 07-10593
  16. In Re Gallaudet (1985)

    This matter is before the Court on the Amended Complaint of Ford Motor Credit Company, see 40 B.R. 828, to Determine Dischargeability of the debt of Thomas H. Gallaudet, III, and Gail H. Gallaudet, the Debtors, to it. The Amended Complaint is predicated on § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code, which exempts from the discharge the following debts:


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 83-00183, Adv. No. 84-0002
  17. In Re Kelsey (2001)

    The plaintiff, Clare Creek (LeDuff) Kelsey (referred to herein as "the debtor"), has filed a Complaint seeking a final judgment of this Court determining that she is entitled to a discharge of the student loan obligations she owes to the defendants, based upon undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The parties have stipulated that this is a core proceeding and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 94-10415, Adversary No. 00-1034
  18. In Re Butler (1995)

    Kessler brought this adversary proceeding[1] before us under, among other theories, sections 523(a)(5) and (15) of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), (15). Kessler's complaint consisted of an objection to the discharge of debts owed to her by her exspouse, Butler. These debts, totalling approximately $250,000, were awarded to Kessler by a 1994 divorce decree.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 94-10734. Adv. No. 95-1034 FGC
  19. In Re Evans (1985)

    The Court had before it for determination the Motion of the Debtors to Avoid Liens impairing their homestead exemption filed October 31, 1984, the Motion of the Debtors for Valuation of Security filed January 28, 1985, and the Complaint of the Debtors to Determine Validity of Liens (Adversary Proceeding # 85-0006) filed January 28, 1985. After notice and hearing the Court entered an Order on May 1, 1985 granting the Motion of the Debtors for a Default Judgment against all parties named in their [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 84-00149
  20. In Re Kelton Motors, Inc. (1989)

    M. Teachout, and D. Moore, Teachout, Brooks, Moore & McNally, Norwich, Vt., J. Bodoff, Kaye, Fialkow, Richmond & Rothstein, Boston, Mass., for United Sav. Acceptance Corp. and Dartmouth Banking Co. (creditors).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont Docket: Bankruptcy No. 88-00255

1 of 18 Page(s)

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