CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ortiz-Peredo

The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to the Debtors' Chapter 13 plan, arguing they did not meet the "best efforts" test by not including lawsuit settlement proceeds in their disposable income. The Debtors contended the lawsuit proceeds were exempt property and thus not liable for pre-petition debts. The Court reviewed the interplay between exemption provisions (§ 522(c)) and disposable income requirements (§ 1325(b)), distinguishing between majority and minority views on the matter. Following the majority view and *In re Launza*, the Court determined that once settlement proceeds are defined as income and "disposable income" under § 1325(b), they qualify as projected disposable income, irrespective of their exempt status. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee's Objection, requiring the Debtors to propose a new plan within fourteen days or face dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 13Disposable IncomeExempt PropertySettlement ProceedsPlan ConfirmationTrustee ObjectionBest Efforts TestSan Antonio DivisionPost-Petition Income
References
9
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Holtslander

Casey Holtslander, a Chapter 13 Debtor, filed a motion to modify her post-confirmation chapter 13 plan to use post-petition insurance proceeds from an automobile casualty policy. AmeriCU Credit Union, the sole loss payee, and the Chapter 13 Trustee objected, arguing that the proceeds should go entirely to AmeriCU or that the Debtor lacked legal basis for distribution to the estate. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Diane Davis, overruled the objections, holding that the insurance proceeds are property of the estate and AmeriCU's interest is limited by the confirmed plan's bifurcation of its secured claim. The Court granted the Debtor's motion to modify the plan, allowing the proceeds to pay AmeriCU's secured claim, with the surplus retained by the estate and a reduction in monthly payments.

BankruptcyChapter 13Plan ModificationInsurance ProceedsLoss PayeeSecured ClaimsProperty of the EstateRes JudicataCramdownAutomobile Casualty
References
14
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2017

In re U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), a Canadian subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, initiated a Chapter 15 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on June 2, 2017. The primary objective was to obtain recognition of its Canadian CCAA proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and to enforce the Sanction Order and the associated reorganization plan approved by the Canadian Court. No objections were raised to the requested relief. Following a hearing on June 29, 2017, the Court granted all requests, recognizing the CCAA proceeding and enforcing the Sanction Order and Plan. The Court's decision was based on USSC meeting Chapter 15 eligibility requirements, including having property in the U.S., and confirmed that the CCAA proceeding was a foreign main proceeding with USSC's center of main interests (COMI) in Canada.

Chapter 15 BankruptcyForeign Main ProceedingCross-Border InsolvencyCCAA ProceedingSanction OrderReorganization PlanInternational ComityBankruptcy Code Section 109(a)Center of Main Interests (COMI)Debtor Eligibility
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Midstate Fin. Co. v. Peoples

Midstate Finance Company appealed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of Justin and Cathy Peoples's Chapter 13 plan. The appeal centered on two main issues: the valuation of the debtors' property for the "best interest of the creditors" test and the failure to discount Chapter 13 plan payments to net present value. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's property valuation, finding it was not clearly erroneous given the evidence considered. However, the court reversed on the second point, holding that Chapter 13 plan payments must be discounted to net present value when applying the best interest of the creditors test. The case was remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BankruptcyChapter 7Chapter 13Creditors' RightsDebtorsProperty ValuationBest Interest TestNet Present ValueHomestead ExemptionLiquidation
References
17
Case No. 13-71842-ast; 13-72354-ast
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2015

In re 1990's Caterers Ltd.

Richard Bivona, one of the petitioning creditors in an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy case against 1990’s Caterers Ltd, was ordered on November 19, 2013, to turn over $30,613.00 in auction sale proceeds to the Chapter 7 Trustee, Kenneth P. Silverman. Despite numerous hearings and orders, including a daily sanction of $200 and a judgment for attorney’s fees and accrued sanctions, Bivona continuously failed to comply. In January 2015, Bivona offered contradictory testimony, claiming he did not possess the funds at the time of the initial order, which the Court deemed false. The Court found Bivona in knowing, clear, and convincing civil contempt and, finding no lesser sanction appropriate due to his pattern of non-compliance, ordered that if he does not turn over the funds by June 22, 2015, a warrant will be issued for his arrest, and he will be held in custody by the United States Marshals until he purges his contempt.

Civil ContemptBankruptcyTurnover OrderSanctionsIncarcerationDebtor-CreditorAsset SaleTrustee EnforcementJudicial AuthorityRule Violation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Serviços de Petróleo Constellation S.A.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed a Chapter 15 petition for recognition of Brazilian judicial reorganization proceedings for the Constellation Group. The court determined the Center of Main Interests (COMI) for eight debtor entities. It recognized seven as foreign main proceedings (Petróleo Constellation, Constellation Overseas, Alpha Star, Gold Star, Lone Star, Star Int'l, and Snover), primarily due to their operational assets, day-to-day management, and creditor expectations in Brazil. One debtor, Constellation Oil Services Holding S.A. (Parent/Constellation), was recognized as a foreign nonmain proceeding, as its COMI was found in Luxembourg, but it maintained sufficient non-transitory business connections in Brazil. No decision was made for Olinda Star and Arazi due to their dismissal from the Brazilian proceedings.

Chapter 15 BankruptcyCross-Border InsolvencyCenter of Main Interests (COMI)Foreign Main ProceedingForeign Nonmain ProceedingBrazilian Judicial ReorganizationLuxembourg Holding CompanyBritish Virgin Islands DebtorsCayman Islands EntityOffshore Drilling Industry
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,518 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational