Cases for Zip , California Northern District Bankruptcy Court

Ninth Circuit Cases

• In re Roderick

Bankr. E.D.Cal. - 425 B.R. 556 - 2010-03-08 - 7 ,

"This opinion is published to highlight Rule 4004(c)(2) as a tool in a debtor's toolbox to preserve the automatic stay during mortgage modification negotiations and to call attention to the status of a mortgage modification as a form of reaffirmation that will be unenforceable as a personal liability of the debtor unless it is made before the discharge is entered."

• In re Urwin

Bankr. D Idaho - No. 09-01921-JDP - 2010-02-02 - ,

While the creditor took some steps to undo a stay violation, the court ruled that creditors had a a duty to do more. The court found that this failure was tantamount to a willful violation of the automatic stay, and therefore awarded the debtor $2,100 in lawyer's fees plus actual damages.

• In re Wilson

Bankr. D.Ariz. - No. 4:09-bk-13836-JMM - 2009-12-09 - ,

The court held that "to remove a lien claim from a parcel of real property," debtor must file an adversary proceeding. Specifically, "a motion to disallow a valid secured claim, evidenced by a prima facie valid proof of claim" is not "the proper procedural vehicle."

Other Circuits

• In re Nguyen

Bankr.E.D.VA - Case No. 11-15308-BFK. - 2011-10-17 - ,

No equity required for debtor to take advantage of power to void judicial liens under section 522(f).. Good discussion of how caselaw supports this and how the law was changed in 1994 to make clear what the formula is.

• in re Katos

Bankr.E.D.N.Y. - Case No. 10-72490-ast - 2010-12-09 - ,

Trustee objected to dismissal even though creditors did not. Court allowed dismissal if debtor would pay costs incurred by trustee already.

• In re Johnson

Bankr. N.D. - 05-38147-BJH-13 - 2010-09-02 - ,

Debtors case opened up after 4 years to get share of Vioxx settlement, even where debtor had no idea he had such a claim at time of filing.

• In re Roy

Bankr. S.D.W.Va. - 09-2972 - 2010-07-26 - ,

"Closing of case did not end bankruptcy court jurisdiction."
Court said: "Because the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over the debtor's adversary complaint at the time it was filed, the court has not lost subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary complaint."

• In re Bryner

Bankr. 10th Cir. Cir. - 425 B.R. 601 - 2010-03-15 - 13 ,

"Defending one's rights in a state court action brought by a debtor is not a violation of the automatic stay."

• In re Timmer

Bankr. N.D. Iowa - 423 BR 870 - 2010-02-17 - 13 ,

The creditor requested stay relief to satisfy a second mortgage that secured a business debt. The court denied this request, and ruled that the creditor could not satisfy the personally guaranteed business debt by foreclosing on debtors' home because there were business resources that the creditor could use to satisfy the debt.

• In re Sanders

Bankr. C.D.Ill. - Case No. 09-91176 - 2010-02-16 - 13 ,

When the creditor willfully violated the automatic stay by repossessing debtor's vehicle after receiving a notice of debtor's bankruptcy, the court awarded $1,797 in damages and $1,500 in attorneys fees to the debtor.

• In re Hettinger

Bankr. W.D.Ky. - No. 09-35798(1)(7) - 2010-02-11 - 7 ,

After filing for chapter 7 relief, a creditor called and harassed the debtor's attorney over 15 phone calls (even after being advised of the chapter 7 filing, and being given notice as a scheduled creditor). The court found the creditor to be in violation of the automatic stay, and awarded the attorney $262 in fees.

• In re Forkish

Bankr. E.D.N.C. - No. 09-06373-8-SWH - 2010-02-02 - ,

The court determined that the issue of child support was not stayed during the bankruptcy proceeding. When the debtor's ex-wife and her lawyer approached the court to recover 23.5 hours in attorney's fees incurred from child support proceedings, the debtor requested the court to hold the ex-wife and her attorney in contempt of the automatic stay.

The court held that in holding a hearing to set these attorney's fees did not violate the stay

• In re Stewart (Williams - Trustee v. PMorgan Chase Bank)

Bankr. W.D.Ark. - 422 B.R. 185 - 2009-12-21 - ,

Debtor was able to avoid the mortgage lien because the mortgage acknowledgment omitted debtor's name and put "he" instead. Given that debtor was a "she," the court ruled that this created enough ambiguity as to who was acknowledged to avoid the mortgage. The court did note, however, that the omission of debtor's name alone would not have been sufficient to create such confusion as to avoid the mortgage.

• In re McClure

Bankr. N.D.Tex. - 420 BR 655 - 2009-11-23 - 7 ,

The court ruled that the creditor-collection agency violated the automatic stay because the creditor (Bank of America) didn't have proper procedures in place to detect when a client had filed for bankruptcy.

• In re Seligman

Bankr. E.D.N.Y. - 417 B.R. 171 - 2009-08-28 - ,

Court found that either spouse in a joint Chapter 13 filing may sever their joint bankruptcy, and convert his or her cast to a Chapter 7 filing.

• In re Buckley

Bankr. E.D. Va. - 416 B.R. 283 - 2009-06-23 - ,

The reaffirmation agreement in this case was denied for two reasons.
1) It was filed a day late;
2) even if it were filed on time, the court still would have rejected it because of its contents (improperly extended the deadline for filing dischargeability actions, and it called for arbitration over the underlying credit contract to be held in an inconvenient forum.

• In re Ahmed

Bankr. E.D. Va. - 411 B.R. 537 - 2009-06-15 - ,

Virginia debtors must set apart property claimed as exempt within five days after the completion of the meeting of creditors and the clerk must record the homestead deed, but recordation need not be completed within the five-day period.

The debtor controlled the method of delivering the deed to the clerk and failed to deliver it in a manner that got the deed to the clerk within five days. "Thus," said the court, "a debtor has set apart the property claimed exempt in his homestead deed only when he has actually delivered a properly executed and recordable homestead deed together with all applicable filing fees to the clerk, not when he deposits it in the mail or puts it in the hands of a delivery service or messenger."

• In re Weisel

Bankr. W.D. Pa. - 400 B.R. 457 - 2009-02-09 - 13 ,

Utility company was allowed to terminate debtors' service without violating automatic stay, because debtors did not pay the adequate assurance deposit within the 20 days post petition period.

• In re Lundstrom

Bankr. D.N.D. - No. 08-30589 - 2009-01-28 - 7 ,

Debtors genuinely forgot to schedule some assets, but revealed these assets within one month of filing. Because of this the court felt that the debtors had no intention to deceive or defraud the court, so the court went ahead and granted a discharge to the debtors.

• In re Pearce

Bankr. N.D.Iowa - 400 B.R. 126 - 2009-01-27 - ,

After failing to pay his subcontractor, the contractor-debtor filed for bankruptcy. The subcontractor contacted police to report the fraud, and was awarded his owed fee in the following criminal proceedings. The bankruptcy court, however, voided this award, holding that the criminal proceeding violated the automatic stay. The court specified, that while a criminal proceeding may normally fall into an exception for normal application of the stay, " the Section 362(b)(1) exception to the automatic stay is not absolute and does not apply when the criminal prosecution of a debtor is primarily motivated by an intent to collect a dischargeable debt."

• In re Parker

Bankr. E.D. Pa. - 400 B.R. 55 - 2009-01-21 - 13 ,

The debtor paid money to the trustee prior to her plan confirmation. After plan confirmation, the trustee paid the money to a creditor. Shortly thereafter, the debtor's case was dismissed for debtor's failure to make payments according to the confirmed plan. At this point, she asked for the sum of money back, and the court ruled that she could not have it. The court said the trustee had fulfilled his duty (paying money received from the debtor to creditors after plan confirmation).

• In re Patton

Bankr. E.D. Pa - No. 07-13996DWS - 2009-01-20 - 13 ,

Because of serial filings and finally entering a fourth filing in four years (to stop a sheriff's sale of debtor's house), debtor refused to communicate with his attorney or to show up at hearings. The court ruled that this filing was only being used for delay purposes, and dismissed debtor's case with prejudice (he wasn't allowed to file for bankruptcy again unless the court approved a future filing).

• In re Ross-Tousey

7th Cir. - 549 F.3d 1148 - 2008-12-17 - 7 , Above

The 30 day rule is not jurisdictional and may be waived.

• In re Witek

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 383 B.R. 323 - 2007-11-29 - 7 , N/A

Haiving failed the means test, if the debtor fails to show "special circumstances" the court has no discretion to deny a "Motion to Dismiss".
"In this matter, the only circumstances raised by the Debtors which could potentially qualify as a `special circumstance' is Mrs. Witek's assertion that her work options are presently limited due to a pending pregnancy. But even assuming that this qualifies as a special circumstance, no evidence was presented as to how her pregnancy would necessitate adjustments to the Debtors' income and/or expenses for which there was no reasonable alternative. See In re Martin, 371 B.R. 347, 354-55 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2007) (finding pregnancy constituted a special circumstance under § 707(b)(2)(B)(i)). Additionally, the Debtors, with specific regards to Mrs. Witek's pregnancy, have not 330*330 met these other necessary conditions to rebut the presumption of abuse as further set forth § 707(b)(2)(B):

(ii) In order to establish special circumstances, the debtor shall be required to itemize each additional expense or adjustment of income and to provide—

(I) documentation for such expense or adjustment to income; and

(II) a detailed explanation of the special circumstances that make such expenses or adjustment to income necessary and reasonable.

(iii) The debtor shall attest under oath to the accuracy of any information provided to demonstrate that additional expenses or adjustments to income are required.

The burden of proof to rebut the presumption of abuse is on the debtor. See, e.g., In re Singletary, 354 B.R. 455, 462 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2006). Resultantly, based on the foregoing discussion, the Court cannot find that this burden has been met."

• In re Perrotta

Bankr. D. N.H. - 378 B.R. 27 - 2007-11-07 - 7 ,

Section 707(b) does not provide the United States Trustee or creditors discovery rights beyond those enumerated in Section 521 (a)(1)(B)(iv), (v), and (e)(2)(A)(i).

• In re Sale

Bankr.M.D.N.C. - 397 B.R. 281 - 2007-10-15 - 7 , N/A

Regarding standing to file for Chapter 7, the burden of proof rests on the moving party.

• In re DePellegrini

Bankr. S.D. Ohio - 365 B.R. 830; 831 - 2007-04-26 - ,

A motion to dismiss under Section 707(b)(2) must be made no later than 30 days after the filing of the Section 704(b)(1) Statement of Presumed Abuse.

• McVay v. Otero

W.D.Tex. - 371 B.R. 190 - 2007-04-26 - 7 , N/A

An evidentiary hearing is required for a ruling on a motion.

• In re Haman

Bankr.D.Del. - 366 B.R. 307 - 2007-04-20 - 7 , N/A

The debtor may make his or her proof by declaration (i.e. no hearing is required).

• In re Wilson

Bankr.D.Del. - 356 B.R. 114 - 2006-12-11 - 7 , N/A

If the debtor fails to show "special circumstances" the court has no discretion to deny a Motion to Dismiss.

• In re Robertson

Bankr. D. Minn. - 370 B.R. 804 - 0200-07-03 - 7 ,

Section 707(b) does not provide the United States Trustee or creditors discovery rights beyond those enumerated in Section 521 (a)(1)(B)(iv), (v), and (e)(2)(A)(i).

• In re Conteras

Bankr. W.D. Tex. - 20 CBN 621 - - ,

The court found that the creditor or its counsel acted in bad faith by failing to timely and completely respond to discovery requests.

Specifically, the debtor sued the creditor for attempting to collect a discharged debt.

• In re Figured

09-06490-8-JRL - Nos. 09-03251-8-JRL - - 8/31/2009 , 13

To avoid a forclosure sale, Debtor filed for Chapter 13 relief. The filing was one minute late, and the court held that the automatic stay was not applicable to the sale.

• In re Bartlett

Bankr. N.D.Iowa - No. 07-00939 - - ,

Judge entered a default judgment against the debtor because debtor refused to obey a court order for discovery proceedings. The court said, "Even on a matter as simple as his address, Debtor refuses to cooperate."

• Burnett v. Stewart Title

No. 10-20250 - Inc. - - 03/04/2011 ,

Employers may discriminate against prospective employees based on the fact that they have filed for bankruptcy.

• In re Nguyen

Bankr.E.D.VA - Case No. 11-15308-BFK. - 2011-10-17 - ,

No equity required for debtor to take advantage of power to void judicial liens under section 522(f).. Good discussion of how caselaw supports this and how the law was changed in 1994 to make clear what the formula is.

• in re Katos

Bankr.E.D.N.Y. - Case No. 10-72490-ast - 2010-12-09 - ,

Trustee objected to dismissal even though creditors did not. Court allowed dismissal if debtor would pay costs incurred by trustee already.

• In re Johnson

Bankr. N.D. - 05-38147-BJH-13 - 2010-09-02 - ,

Debtors case opened up after 4 years to get share of Vioxx settlement, even where debtor had no idea he had such a claim at time of filing.

• In re Roy

Bankr. S.D.W.Va. - 09-2972 - 2010-07-26 - ,

"Closing of case did not end bankruptcy court jurisdiction."
Court said: "Because the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over the debtor's adversary complaint at the time it was filed, the court has not lost subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary complaint."

• In re Lavilla

Bankr. E.D.Cal. - 425 B.R. 572 - 2010-03-23 - 13 ,

Debtors had filed a Chapter 7 less than eight years prior to their current filing, so they could only seek relief under Chapter 13. However, the debtors could not offer any evidence to support their burden of showing "good faith" (i.e. that this Chapter 13 was not just a "disguised Chapter 7" since debtors were paying almost nothing in their proposed plan). The court said that in this case where debtors are ineligible for Chapter 7, they must show proof of such good faith in order to get Chapter 13 relief.

The court said, "When a prima facie objection is raised, the debtors still have the burden of proof to establish their 'good faith.' This requires the debtors to produce some evidence in support of confirmation to address the 'good faith issue.' The debtors have already received a 'fresh start' in Chapter 7. At minimum, tehy should explain the circumstances that compel them to seek another discharge of virtually all of their obligations at a time when they are not yet eligible for another Chapter 7 discharge."

• In re Bryner

Bankr. 10th Cir. Cir. - 425 B.R. 601 - 2010-03-15 - 13 ,

"Defending one's rights in a state court action brought by a debtor is not a violation of the automatic stay."

• In re Roderick

Bankr. E.D.Cal. - 425 B.R. 556 - 2010-03-08 - 7 ,

"This opinion is published to highlight Rule 4004(c)(2) as a tool in a debtor's toolbox to preserve the automatic stay during mortgage modification negotiations and to call attention to the status of a mortgage modification as a form of reaffirmation that will be unenforceable as a personal liability of the debtor unless it is made before the discharge is entered."

• In re Timmer

Bankr. N.D. Iowa - 423 BR 870 - 2010-02-17 - 13 ,

The creditor requested stay relief to satisfy a second mortgage that secured a business debt. The court denied this request, and ruled that the creditor could not satisfy the personally guaranteed business debt by foreclosing on debtors' home because there were business resources that the creditor could use to satisfy the debt.

• In re Sanders

Bankr. C.D.Ill. - Case No. 09-91176 - 2010-02-16 - 13 ,

When the creditor willfully violated the automatic stay by repossessing debtor's vehicle after receiving a notice of debtor's bankruptcy, the court awarded $1,797 in damages and $1,500 in attorneys fees to the debtor.

• In re Hettinger

Bankr. W.D.Ky. - No. 09-35798(1)(7) - 2010-02-11 - 7 ,

After filing for chapter 7 relief, a creditor called and harassed the debtor's attorney over 15 phone calls (even after being advised of the chapter 7 filing, and being given notice as a scheduled creditor). The court found the creditor to be in violation of the automatic stay, and awarded the attorney $262 in fees.

• In re Forkish

Bankr. E.D.N.C. - No. 09-06373-8-SWH - 2010-02-02 - ,

The court determined that the issue of child support was not stayed during the bankruptcy proceeding. When the debtor's ex-wife and her lawyer approached the court to recover 23.5 hours in attorney's fees incurred from child support proceedings, the debtor requested the court to hold the ex-wife and her attorney in contempt of the automatic stay.

The court held that in holding a hearing to set these attorney's fees did not violate the stay

• In re Urwin

Bankr. D Idaho - No. 09-01921-JDP - 2010-02-02 - ,

While the creditor took some steps to undo a stay violation, the court ruled that creditors had a a duty to do more. The court found that this failure was tantamount to a willful violation of the automatic stay, and therefore awarded the debtor $2,100 in lawyer's fees plus actual damages.

• In re Stewart (Williams - Trustee v. PMorgan Chase Bank)

Bankr. W.D.Ark. - 422 B.R. 185 - 2009-12-21 - ,

Debtor was able to avoid the mortgage lien because the mortgage acknowledgment omitted debtor's name and put "he" instead. Given that debtor was a "she," the court ruled that this created enough ambiguity as to who was acknowledged to avoid the mortgage. The court did note, however, that the omission of debtor's name alone would not have been sufficient to create such confusion as to avoid the mortgage.

• In re Wilson

Bankr. D.Ariz. - No. 4:09-bk-13836-JMM - 2009-12-09 - ,

The court held that "to remove a lien claim from a parcel of real property," debtor must file an adversary proceeding. Specifically, "a motion to disallow a valid secured claim, evidenced by a prima facie valid proof of claim" is not "the proper procedural vehicle."

• In re McClure

Bankr. N.D.Tex. - 420 BR 655 - 2009-11-23 - 7 ,

The court ruled that the creditor-collection agency violated the automatic stay because the creditor (Bank of America) didn't have proper procedures in place to detect when a client had filed for bankruptcy.

• In re Seligman

Bankr. E.D.N.Y. - 417 B.R. 171 - 2009-08-28 - ,

Court found that either spouse in a joint Chapter 13 filing may sever their joint bankruptcy, and convert his or her cast to a Chapter 7 filing.

• In re Buckley

Bankr. E.D. Va. - 416 B.R. 283 - 2009-06-23 - ,

The reaffirmation agreement in this case was denied for two reasons.
1) It was filed a day late;
2) even if it were filed on time, the court still would have rejected it because of its contents (improperly extended the deadline for filing dischargeability actions, and it called for arbitration over the underlying credit contract to be held in an inconvenient forum.

• In re Ahmed

Bankr. E.D. Va. - 411 B.R. 537 - 2009-06-15 - ,

Virginia debtors must set apart property claimed as exempt within five days after the completion of the meeting of creditors and the clerk must record the homestead deed, but recordation need not be completed within the five-day period.

The debtor controlled the method of delivering the deed to the clerk and failed to deliver it in a manner that got the deed to the clerk within five days. "Thus," said the court, "a debtor has set apart the property claimed exempt in his homestead deed only when he has actually delivered a properly executed and recordable homestead deed together with all applicable filing fees to the clerk, not when he deposits it in the mail or puts it in the hands of a delivery service or messenger."

• In re Weisel

Bankr. W.D. Pa. - 400 B.R. 457 - 2009-02-09 - 13 ,

Utility company was allowed to terminate debtors' service without violating automatic stay, because debtors did not pay the adequate assurance deposit within the 20 days post petition period.

• In re Lundstrom

Bankr. D.N.D. - No. 08-30589 - 2009-01-28 - 7 ,

Debtors genuinely forgot to schedule some assets, but revealed these assets within one month of filing. Because of this the court felt that the debtors had no intention to deceive or defraud the court, so the court went ahead and granted a discharge to the debtors.

• In re Pearce

Bankr. N.D.Iowa - 400 B.R. 126 - 2009-01-27 - ,

After failing to pay his subcontractor, the contractor-debtor filed for bankruptcy. The subcontractor contacted police to report the fraud, and was awarded his owed fee in the following criminal proceedings. The bankruptcy court, however, voided this award, holding that the criminal proceeding violated the automatic stay. The court specified, that while a criminal proceeding may normally fall into an exception for normal application of the stay, " the Section 362(b)(1) exception to the automatic stay is not absolute and does not apply when the criminal prosecution of a debtor is primarily motivated by an intent to collect a dischargeable debt."

• In re Parker

Bankr. E.D. Pa. - 400 B.R. 55 - 2009-01-21 - 13 ,

The debtor paid money to the trustee prior to her plan confirmation. After plan confirmation, the trustee paid the money to a creditor. Shortly thereafter, the debtor's case was dismissed for debtor's failure to make payments according to the confirmed plan. At this point, she asked for the sum of money back, and the court ruled that she could not have it. The court said the trustee had fulfilled his duty (paying money received from the debtor to creditors after plan confirmation).

• In re Patton

Bankr. E.D. Pa - No. 07-13996DWS - 2009-01-20 - 13 ,

Because of serial filings and finally entering a fourth filing in four years (to stop a sheriff's sale of debtor's house), debtor refused to communicate with his attorney or to show up at hearings. The court ruled that this filing was only being used for delay purposes, and dismissed debtor's case with prejudice (he wasn't allowed to file for bankruptcy again unless the court approved a future filing).

• In re Ross-Tousey

7th Cir. - 549 F.3d 1148 - 2008-12-17 - 7 , Above

The 30 day rule is not jurisdictional and may be waived.

• In re Witek

Bankr.N.D.Ohio - 383 B.R. 323 - 2007-11-29 - 7 , N/A

Haiving failed the means test, if the debtor fails to show "special circumstances" the court has no discretion to deny a "Motion to Dismiss".
"In this matter, the only circumstances raised by the Debtors which could potentially qualify as a `special circumstance' is Mrs. Witek's assertion that her work options are presently limited due to a pending pregnancy. But even assuming that this qualifies as a special circumstance, no evidence was presented as to how her pregnancy would necessitate adjustments to the Debtors' income and/or expenses for which there was no reasonable alternative. See In re Martin, 371 B.R. 347, 354-55 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2007) (finding pregnancy constituted a special circumstance under § 707(b)(2)(B)(i)). Additionally, the Debtors, with specific regards to Mrs. Witek's pregnancy, have not 330*330 met these other necessary conditions to rebut the presumption of abuse as further set forth § 707(b)(2)(B):

(ii) In order to establish special circumstances, the debtor shall be required to itemize each additional expense or adjustment of income and to provide—

(I) documentation for such expense or adjustment to income; and

(II) a detailed explanation of the special circumstances that make such expenses or adjustment to income necessary and reasonable.

(iii) The debtor shall attest under oath to the accuracy of any information provided to demonstrate that additional expenses or adjustments to income are required.

The burden of proof to rebut the presumption of abuse is on the debtor. See, e.g., In re Singletary, 354 B.R. 455, 462 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2006). Resultantly, based on the foregoing discussion, the Court cannot find that this burden has been met."

• In re Perrotta

Bankr. D. N.H. - 378 B.R. 27 - 2007-11-07 - 7 ,

Section 707(b) does not provide the United States Trustee or creditors discovery rights beyond those enumerated in Section 521 (a)(1)(B)(iv), (v), and (e)(2)(A)(i).

• In re Sale

Bankr.M.D.N.C. - 397 B.R. 281 - 2007-10-15 - 7 , N/A

Regarding standing to file for Chapter 7, the burden of proof rests on the moving party.

• In re DePellegrini

Bankr. S.D. Ohio - 365 B.R. 830; 831 - 2007-04-26 - ,

A motion to dismiss under Section 707(b)(2) must be made no later than 30 days after the filing of the Section 704(b)(1) Statement of Presumed Abuse.

• McVay v. Otero

W.D.Tex. - 371 B.R. 190 - 2007-04-26 - 7 , N/A

An evidentiary hearing is required for a ruling on a motion.

• In re Haman

Bankr.D.Del. - 366 B.R. 307 - 2007-04-20 - 7 , N/A

The debtor may make his or her proof by declaration (i.e. no hearing is required).

• In re Wilson

Bankr.D.Del. - 356 B.R. 114 - 2006-12-11 - 7 , N/A

If the debtor fails to show "special circumstances" the court has no discretion to deny a Motion to Dismiss.

• In re Robertson

Bankr. D. Minn. - 370 B.R. 804 - 0200-07-03 - 7 ,

Section 707(b) does not provide the United States Trustee or creditors discovery rights beyond those enumerated in Section 521 (a)(1)(B)(iv), (v), and (e)(2)(A)(i).

• In re Conteras

Bankr. W.D. Tex. - 20 CBN 621 - - ,

The court found that the creditor or its counsel acted in bad faith by failing to timely and completely respond to discovery requests.

Specifically, the debtor sued the creditor for attempting to collect a discharged debt.

• In re Figured

09-06490-8-JRL - Nos. 09-03251-8-JRL - - 8/31/2009 , 13

To avoid a forclosure sale, Debtor filed for Chapter 13 relief. The filing was one minute late, and the court held that the automatic stay was not applicable to the sale.

• In re Bartlett

Bankr. N.D.Iowa - No. 07-00939 - - ,

Judge entered a default judgment against the debtor because debtor refused to obey a court order for discovery proceedings. The court said, "Even on a matter as simple as his address, Debtor refuses to cooperate."

• Burnett v. Stewart Title

No. 10-20250 - Inc. - - 03/04/2011 ,

Employers may discriminate against prospective employees based on the fact that they have filed for bankruptcy.

All Cases A to Z

• Burnett v. Stewart Title, Inc. , (No. 10-20250 ) , #846061363469646381
• In re Ahmed, 411 B.R. 537 , (Bankr. E.D. Va. ) 2009-06-15, #6505613341489530011
• In re Bartlett, No. 07-00939 , (Bankr. N.D.Iowa ) , #7737859515574039651
• In re Bryner, 425 B.R. 601 , (Bankr. 10th Cir. Cir. ) 2010-03-15, #13327380165432391088
• In re Buckley, 416 B.R. 283 , (Bankr. E.D. Va. ) 2009-06-23, #16445734232716618190
• In re Conteras, 20 CBN 621 , (Bankr. W.D. Tex. ) , #
• In re DePellegrini, 365 B.R. 830; 831 , (Bankr. S.D. Ohio ) 2007-04-26, #618604927845446016
• In re Figured, Nos. 09-03251-8-JRL , (09-06490-8-JRL ) , #2332990228909402976
• In re Forkish, No. 09-06373-8-SWH , (Bankr. E.D.N.C. ) 2010-02-02, #8739675676567666187
• In re Haman, 366 B.R. 307 , (Bankr.D.Del. ) 2007-04-20, #
• In re Hettinger, No. 09-35798(1)(7) , (Bankr. W.D.Ky. ) 2010-02-11, #14030362554536407492
• In re Johnson, 05-38147-BJH-13 , (Bankr. N.D. ) 2010-09-02, #12588216528024838797
• in re Katos, Case No. 10-72490-ast , (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. ) 2010-12-09, #14102020028434960224
• In re Lavilla, 425 B.R. 572 , (Bankr. E.D.Cal. ) 2010-03-23, #16793816686461512897
• In re Lundstrom, No. 08-30589 , (Bankr. D.N.D. ) 2009-01-28, #3619110116233862508
• In re McClure, 420 BR 655 , (Bankr. N.D.Tex. ) 2009-11-23, #11342747199949689162
• In re Nguyen, Case No. 11-15308-BFK. , (Bankr.E.D.VA ) 2011-10-17, #6681483601526223864
• In re Parker, 400 B.R. 55 , (Bankr. E.D. Pa. ) 2009-01-21, #17432232512117619895
• In re Patton, No. 07-13996DWS , (Bankr. E.D. Pa ) 2009-01-20, #100557753565403844
• In re Pearce, 400 B.R. 126 , (Bankr. N.D.Iowa ) 2009-01-27, #8942099868999697199
• In re Perrotta, 378 B.R. 27 , (Bankr. D. N.H. ) 2007-11-07, #1633913662049709983
• In re Robertson, 370 B.R. 804 , (Bankr. D. Minn. ) 0200-07-03, #4508779338189785670
• In re Roderick, 425 B.R. 556 , (Bankr. E.D.Cal. ) 2010-03-08, #9614020663904606523
• In re Ross-Tousey, 549 F.3d 1148 , (7th Cir. ) 2008-12-17, #8721112569690193246
• In re Roy, 09-2972 , (Bankr. S.D.W.Va. ) 2010-07-26, #16739448048345742107
• In re Sale, 397 B.R. 281 , (Bankr.M.D.N.C. ) 2007-10-15, #14931096900560766236
• In re Sanders, Case No. 09-91176 , (Bankr. C.D.Ill. ) 2010-02-16, #18409269032788179862
• In re Seligman, 417 B.R. 171 , (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. ) 2009-08-28, #8008979235840172858
• In re Stewart (Williams - Trustee v. PMorgan Chase Bank), 422 B.R. 185 , (Bankr. W.D.Ark. ) 2009-12-21, #18325724259477110682
• In re Timmer, 423 BR 870 , (Bankr. N.D. Iowa ) 2010-02-17, #1264787732022100121
• In re Urwin, No. 09-01921-JDP , (Bankr. D Idaho ) 2010-02-02, #1092362913751894433
• In re Weisel, 400 B.R. 457 , (Bankr. W.D. Pa. ) 2009-02-09, #1590050985954043418
• In re Wilson, 356 B.R. 114 , (Bankr.D.Del. ) 2006-12-11, #13322760672347547188
• In re Wilson, No. 4:09-bk-13836-JMM , (Bankr. D.Ariz. ) 2009-12-09, #16201120689690399118
• In re Witek, 383 B.R. 323 , (Bankr.N.D.Ohio ) 2007-11-29, #9315258897460874742
• McVay v. Otero, 371 B.R. 190 , (W.D.Tex. ) 2007-04-26, #13235503489676277826