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

Pereira v. Young (In Re Young)

This memorandum decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses an adversary proceeding where John S. Pereira, the Chapter 7 trustee, sought to deny the debtor, Ginger Young, a discharge in bankruptcy. The Trustee raised objections under three sections of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging the debtor failed to keep adequate records, knowingly withheld information, and could not satisfactorily explain the loss of assets totaling approximately $140,000 from a property sale and IRA/pension withdrawals. Judge Elizabeth S. Stong considered the debtor's defense of being a victim of severe domestic and financial abuse, supported by expert testimony from Laura Boyd, MSW. The court found the debtor's explanation credible and justified her inability to produce complete financial records and account for the asset disposition due to the traumatic circumstances. Consequently, all of the Trustee's objections to the Debtor's discharge were denied.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor DischargeTrustee ObjectionsDomestic AbuseFinancial AbuseRecord KeepingAsset DispositionJustificationCredibility
References
46
Case No. 14-11068
Regular Panel Decision

Broadway Warehouse Co. v. Schmitt (In re Schmitt)

This consolidated opinion denies the bankruptcy discharges of three debtors, Jeffrey Schmitt, Kevin Schmitt, and Eric Penton, stemming from adversary proceedings. The debtors were found liable in a New York State Supreme Court judgment to Broadway Warehouse Co. for over $400,000 in unpaid rent related to a family trucking business, National Courier, Inc. The Bankruptcy Court, bound by the state court's findings due to collateral estoppel, determined that the debtors operated a de facto partnership and failed to maintain adequate business and personal financial records. The court rejected their "justification" defense, noting their education, experience, and awareness of financial irregularities. Consequently, their discharges are denied under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) for fraud.

Bankruptcy DischargeAdversary ProceedingsCollateral EstoppelFailure to Keep RecordsFraudulent TransfersPartnership LiabilityState Court PreclusionBusiness RecordsDebtor AccountabilityU.S. Bankruptcy Court
References
13
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 02-42736(ALG), Adversary No. 02-08090
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2005

In Re Deguevara

This case involves Carmela L. DeGuevara's adversary proceeding to discharge student loans managed by Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) under the "undue hardship" provision of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York applied the three-part Brunner test. The Court found that DeGuevara, a 46-year-old immigrant supporting her elderly, sick mother, could not maintain a minimal standard of living due to her low income, medical conditions, and persistent unemployment challenges. It concluded that her financial distress was likely to continue and that she had made good faith efforts to repay her loans, thereby granting the discharge.

BankruptcyStudent LoansUndue HardshipBrunner TestDependent SupportFinancial DistressEmployment SearchMedical ConditionsDebtor RightsChapter 7
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Mensch

Henry Mensch, the debtor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He failed to appear at his Section 524(d) discharge hearing due to a disabling stroke, leading to a legal question regarding the mandatory attendance requirement. The court reviewed relevant statutes and legislative history, as well as prior case law, to determine if a debtor could be excused from personal appearance. It concluded that a debtor with a valid, sufficient excuse, who does not intend to reaffirm any debts and is to be granted a discharge, is not required to attend the Section 524(d) hearing. The court ultimately granted Henry Mensch's discharge.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge HearingDebtor AppearanceSection 524(d)Statutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical ExcuseReaffirmation of DebtsBankruptcy Code
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Goidel (In Re Goidel)

Bonnie Roberts, a bus driver, sued the Goidel debtors for defamation after they accused her of sexually abusing their daughter, Tara, on a preschool bus. This accusation was investigated but no charges were brought against Roberts. The Goidels filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, staying the defamation action. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Howard Schwartzberg, found no credible evidence of sexual abuse by Roberts. Exercising discretion, the court abstained from determining the amount of Roberts' claim and lifted the automatic stay, allowing the defamation suit to proceed in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, to judgment. The bankruptcy court will later determine if any judgment obtained by Roberts is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

DefamationBankruptcyNon-dischargeability of DebtSexual Abuse AllegationAutomatic StayAbstention DoctrineIntentional TortChapter 7Willful and Malicious InjuryState Court Action
References
9
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 00 B 14390(ASH). Adversary No. 00-3004A.
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

In Re Higgins

The debtors, Kevin and Sue Higgins, initiated an adversary proceeding against creditor Eugene Erickson concerning the avoidability of mortgage and confession of judgment liens, usury claims, and Erickson's attempt to challenge debt dischargeability. The Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, ruled that the Higginses lacked standing to avoid pre-petition transfers as preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547. However, the court granted the Higginses' request to avoid the confession of judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), finding it impaired their homestead exemption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Higginses had waived their usury defense but held that Erickson's right to contest the dischargeability of his claim was time-barred. This resulted in a mixed outcome, largely favorable to the debtors regarding lien impairment and discharge.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionLien AvoidanceJudicial LienPreference AvoidanceUsury DefenseConfession of JudgmentDischargeabilityEquitable TollingEquitable Estoppel
References
68
Case No. 10-9055(CGM)
Regular Panel Decision

Hartley v. Esposito (In re Hartley)

Richard and Kara Hartley appealed a Bankruptcy Court order that granted summary judgment to Jennifer Esposito. Ms. Esposito sought to prevent the discharge of a judgment against the Hartleys' business, Hartley's Catering, Inc., from their personal bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court found the Hartleys fraudulently concealed the dissolution of their business, thus rendering the debt non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(3). The District Court, finding no clear error in the factual findings and upholding conclusions of law, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, confirming the Hartleys' joint and several liability and the debt's exception from discharge due to fraud and lack of proper notice.

Bankruptcy LawDischargeabilityFraudulent ConcealmentCorporate DissolutionShareholder LiabilityNew York LawCreditor RightsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDebt Exception
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moreo v. Rossi (In Re Moreo)

The case involves an appeal by debtors Vincent and Marian Norma Moreo from a Bankruptcy Court decision denying their Chapter 7 discharge. The Bankruptcy Court's denial was based on Mrs. Moreo's failure to maintain adequate financial records (under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3)) and both debtors making false oaths or accounts (under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A)). On appeal, the District Court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, reviewed the matter. The court affirmed the denial of Mrs. Moreo's discharge, finding her record-keeping practices for their bagel business were insufficient and not justified. The court also affirmed the denial of discharge for both debtors due to false oaths, citing their omissions of three lawsuits and Mr. Moreo's 100% shareholder interest in the Bagel Store from their bankruptcy schedules, demonstrating a reckless indifference to the truth. The court emphasized the cumulative effect of these misstatements and omissions in upholding the Bankruptcy Court's decision.

Bankruptcy AppealChapter 7 DischargeFalse OathOmission of AssetsInadequate Financial RecordsReckless IndifferenceCreditor FraudSchedules AmendmentMeans Test ErrorsSmall Business Accounting
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 1,082 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