Pending. | Lat. Pending; as lis pendens, a pending suit
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Court Cases
This opinion deals with two involuntary Chapter 11 petitions brought under the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 which became effective October 1, 1979. In this opinion that legislation will be referred to as the Code and the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 which was replaced by that legislation will be referred to as the Act. This distinguishing designation is one that is now universally recognized in the field of insolvency.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 80-00011-HP, 80-00012-HP
In Re DeSardi (2006)On October 17, 2005, several provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) became effective. Among those are provisions that affect the rights of creditors whose claims are secured by purchase money security interests in vehicles in chapter 13 cases. New local rules and a new uniform chapter 13 plan, both of which provide for adequate protection for vehicle lenders in chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, also became effective in this District on October 17, 2005.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 05-95075, 05-95052, 05-95121
In Re Sanchez (2007)The American bankruptcy system is often described as having two primary objectives: first, ensuring the equitable and timely repayment of creditors with valid claims; and second, affording debtors a fresh start once they emerge from bankruptcy. In re Ortiz, No. 05-39982, 2006 WL 2946500, at *9 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Oct. 13, 2006) (quoting In re T-H New Orleans Ltd. P'ship, 188 B.R. 799, 807 (E.D.La. 1995), aff'd, 116 F.3d 790 (5th Cir.1997)). In order for these twin goals to be achieved indeed, [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy No. 02-45416. Adversary No. 06-3671
This matter comes before me upon my own motion to show cause why abstention from the above adversary proceeding should not be recommended to the district court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 28 U.S.C. § 157, and the Order of Reference of Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings Nunc Pro Tunc entered by the district court, I have jurisdiction to initially evaluate the grounds for abstention in accordance with Rule 5011(b) of the Bankruptcy Rules. Having examined counsels' memoranda on the issue, [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy No. 86-10798-H5-11, Adv. No. 87-0261
In Re Padilla (2007)
A mortgage lender routinely incurs legal fees, inspection costs, and other expenses ("Reimbursable Expenses") to protect its security interest in a debtor's home. Mortgage contracts generally authorize these Reimbursable Expenses. This case requires the Court to consider how the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a lender's right to collect Reimbursable Expenses in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 04-42708, 05-30917, Adversary Nos. 06-03609, 06-03654
In Re Ramirez Rodriguez (1997)
Ben B. Floyd, Trustee of the jointly administered bankruptcy estates of Mary Teresa Ramirez Rodriguez, T.R. Network Companies, Inc., T.R. Financial Services, U.S., Inc., and Amicus Computer Systems, Inc., and plaintiff herein, submits these first amended findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 93-43722-H5-7, 93-43723-H3-7, 93-43724-H2-7, and 93-43725-H4-7, Adversary No. 95-4307
In Re Singletary (2006)LeManda and Jeffrey Singletary (the Debtors) filed a Chapter 7 petition on February 1, 2006 indicating that the presumption of abuse did not arise based en their belief that they had sufficient deductions to their current monthly income under U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(iii) for payments on secured debts. The United States Trustee (the UST) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to § 707(b)(2) claiming that: (:1) the Debtors should not be allowed to deduct payments on secured property that they [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 06-30339-H4-7
In Re Rodriguez (2008)
For nearly a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that individual debtors who successfully emerge from bankruptcy should receive a fresh start. Williams v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar., Co., 236 U.S. 549, 554, 555, 35 S.Ct. 289, 290, 59 L.Ed. 713 (1915).
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy No. 02-10605. Adversary No. 08-01004
In Re MCorp Financial, Inc. (1992)
Philip Anker, Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., William J. Perlstein and Elizabeth S. Duane, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C., Donald Christie, Kirkendall & Collins, Houston, Tex., Robert Rosenberg, Latham & Watkins, New York City, for Creditors Committee.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 89-02312-H3-11, 89-02324-H5-11, 89-02848-H2-11 and 89-02312-H3-11
In Re Calvin (2005)
This contested matter concerns a national bank's internal policy towards non-borrowing Chapter 7 debtors who have accounts at the bank. Upon learning of the filing of a Chapter 7 petition, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Bank) automatically places an administrative freeze on all accounts of debtors in excess of $5,000.00. The Bank then sends a letter to the Chapter 7 trustee seeking direction regarding the disposition of the funds.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 05-35925
This adversary proceeding presents an interesting attempt at using the Bankruptcy Code as a mechanism for forum shopping. In 2001, the plaintiff, Gilbane Building Company (Gilbane), entered into a contract with Air Systems Incorporated (ASI), which at the time was a wholly owned subsidiary of Encompass Services Corporation (Encompass or the Debtor). In late 2002, Encompass and ASI filed for Chapter 11. As part of the reorganization, Air Systems Acquisitions, Inc. (ASA) purchased all the assets [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy No. 02-43582-11. Adversary No. 05-3465
In Re Haws (1993)
This Court has carefully considered Defendants' Amended Motion for Determination That This Adversary Proceeding is a Non-Core Matter and Motion for Order Recommending Withdrawal of the Order of Reference and Plaintiff's Response and rules that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, Defendant's Amended Motion is dismissed.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy No. 89-02017-H1-11, Adv. No. 92-4280
In Re Gonzalez (2008)Jorge and Sandra Gonzalez filed their third chapter 13 petition on October 1, 2007. The Gonzalezes timely filed a chapter 13 plan on October 16, 2007. The Gonzalezes' plan proposed to cure payment arrearages on their home in Tomball, Texas. About one month later, the Gonzalezes decided to surrender their Tomball home. Nevertheless, the Gonzalezes' projected disposable income analysis included payments on the home. The Bankruptcy Code requires debtors to devote their projected disposable income [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 07-36802
In Re Parsley (2008)The matter before this Court began with a routine motion to lift stay, but has spiraled into a lengthy ordeal which has cost the parties substantial time, attorneys' fees, and costs. Over one year ago, on February 6, 2007, the Court sought a simple answer to a simple question why was a motion to lift stay being withdrawn? The movant's attorney, rather than answer the question truthfully by admitting that the motion was based upon an incorrect payment history, attempted to conceal the truth [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 05-90374
In Re Sissom (2007)
As under current law, the debtor will be permitted to convert nonexempt property into exempt property before filing a bankruptcy petition. The practice is not fraudulent as to creditors, and permits the debtor to make full use of the exemptions to which he is entitled under the law.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 06-31917
In Re Doctors Hosp. 1997, Lp (2006)
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON CHARLES VELDEKENS, ASHRAF VELDEKENS, AND TIDWELL PROPERTIES, INC'S AMENDED MOTION TO ABSTAIN AND TO REMAND AND, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR TEE WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERRAL ORDER REFERRING THIS CASE TO BANKRUPTCY COURT BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy No. 05-35291, Adversary No. 05-3772
In Re Stephens (2011)
The court has held a hearing on confirmation of the Debtor's Chapter 11 plan (Docket No. 108). The following are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the court. A separate Judgment will be entered denying confirmation of the plan. To the extent any of the Findings of Fact are considered Conclusions of Law, they are adopted as such. To the extent any of the Conclusions of Law are considered Findings of Fact, they are adopted as such.
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 10-31263-H3-11
In Re Charles (2005)
This is the debtor's second bankruptcy case. The debtor's first case was voluntarily dismissed on July 6, 2005. The debtor filed the present case on October 31, 2005. On that same date, the debtor filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance of the Automatic Stay [docket no. 5] and a Motion to Expedite Hearing [docket no. 6].
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 05-95071-H1-13
In Re Nowlin (2007)Pamela Page Nowlin (the Debtor) filed a proposed Chapter 13 plan which would last 60 months. Although the Debtor has a 401(k) loan obligation which will be satisfied on month 24 of this proposed plan, the proposed plan payments are not scheduled to increase in months 25 through 60. David Peake, the Chapter 13 Trustee (the Trustee), opposes confirmation of the Debtor's proposed plan, arguing that the money being used to retire the 401(k) loan obligation in the first 24 months should thereafter [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: 06-34785
In Re Cooley (1988)This matter comes before me on Motion by First City National Bank of Houston ("First City") to Limit Operation of Debtor's Business. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the District Court's Order of Reference of Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings, I have jurisdiction over this contested matter. Since the disputed issue turns on the interpretation and application of a specific provision of Title 11, the proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). The [...]
Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Docket: Bankruptcy No. 88-00154-H5-11