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 Messing

The debtor, Patrick F. Messing, sought to exempt his $6,365.45 interest in an ERISA-qualified pension benefit plan established by his employer, J.B.F. Associates, Inc. He claimed the exemption under both Tennessee law (Tenn.Code Ann. § 26-2-104(b)) and federal law (11 U.S.C.A. § 522(b)(2)(A)). The trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to both claims. The court sustained the trustee's objection to the Tennessee law claim, finding the state statute preempted by ERISA. However, the court denied the trustee's objection to the federal law claim, concluding that ERISA § 206(d)(1) establishes a cognizable federal exemption. Therefore, the debtor's claim of exemption was granted under federal law but denied under state law.

ERISABankruptcyExemptionPension PlanEmployee BenefitsFederal PreemptionAnti-AlienationChapter 7Debtor's RightsTrustee Objection
References
38
Case No. 04-14-00657-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Richard Leshin, Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trust, Trust A v. Juan Gerardo Oliva, Rosina Oliva, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trusts B, C, and D, and Alma Guadalupe Davila

A party who seeks to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record that establishes its basis for vacating the award. Leshin has completely failed to carry his burden because he has come forth only with a partial record. Leshin has not brought forth a record showing that he was not brought into arbitration in a manner that would render him individually liable. For this reason alone, the trial court was correct in confirming the arbitrator’s award. In any case, the matters in the record clearly establish that the arbitrator was well within his power to determine that Leshin was individually liable for his wrongful acts. The AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration, which apply to this matter, provide that the arbitrator had the power to rule on his own jurisdiction, 'including any objections with respect to the . . . scope . . . of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.' Finally, the Texas Trust Code is clear that a trustee is always individually liable for his wrongful acts committed as trustee, so it was not necessary to sue Leshin in any particular capacity.

ArbitrationTrustee LiabilityTrust DisputeArbitration AwardAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrabilityTexas LawCommercial Arbitration RulesDavila Family Trust
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2001

In Re Dibiase

The case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, Gregory Dibiase, and trustee Helen G. Schwartz. The central issue is the exemptability and turnover of employee stock options granted to Dibiase by Tesoro Petroleum Corporation. Dibiase claimed the options as exempt under the federal "wild card" provision, valuing them at zero. The trustee objected, arguing the options had value and were property of the estate. The court rejected Dibiase's argument that the options had not "vested" and therefore had no value, asserting that Texas law recognizes stock options as present property interests even if subject to future contingencies. The court also rejected the Allen allocation formula, which sought to exclude a portion of the options based on post-petition efforts, finding it legally flawed. Ultimately, the court sustained the trustee's objection to exemptions, concluding the entire option belonged to the estate, but granted turnover only for the proportion the trustee had specifically pleaded for.

BankruptcyStock OptionsExemptionsTurnoverProperty of the EstateWild Card ExemptionVested RightsConditions PrecedentConditions SubsequentChapter 7
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Smith

Maurice K. Guinn, the Chapter 7 Trustee, objected to Norma Howard Smith's amended exemption claim of $10,000.00 from a National Service Life Insurance Policy. The Debtor sought exemption under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1970(g) and § 5301. The court ruled that § 1970(g) does not cover National Service Life Insurance, but found the proceeds exempt under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5301(a) from creditors' claims. Additionally, the court decided that the funds maintained their exempt status after being invested in a certificate of deposit. Consequently, the Trustee's objection was denied, upholding the Debtor's exemption claim.

BankruptcyExemption ClaimChapter 7National Service Life InsuranceVeterans' BenefitsStatutory ConstructionCreditor ClaimsCertificate of DepositLife Insurance ProceedsFederal Exemption Law
References
21
Case No. 05-91224
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McBride

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case where debtor Diane McBride claimed her ExxonMobil Savings Plan as exempt under Texas state law. The Trustee objected to the exemption of her after-tax contributions, amounting to $4,840.00. The Court analyzed whether ERISA-qualified savings plans, including after-tax contributions, are 'excluded' from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) due to an anti-alienation provision, or merely 'exempt' under state law. Citing Patterson v. Shumate, the Court concluded that the presence of an anti-alienation clause in an ERISA-qualified plan means the funds are excluded from the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection.

BankruptcyERISARetirement PlanAfter-Tax ContributionsExemptionExclusionAnti-alienation ProvisionSpendthrift TrustTexas Property CodeChapter 7
References
22
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. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. 07-03-0307-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2005

Mabel Walter Rogers, Larry Frank Walter, Co-Trustee, Robert Wayne Veigel, Co-Trustee, Dorothy Ann Veigel Oswald and Jo Ann Veigel Eudy v. in Re: Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Trust No. 2, Amarillo National Bank, Amarillo, Texas, Co-Trustee

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Amarillo National Bank (ANB) concerning various estates, trusts, and management agreements. The primary appellant, Robert Wayne Veigel (R.W.), contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, preventing him from pursuing counterclaims and requesting an accounting. R.W. argued that interests bequeathed by Charles R. Veigel were life estates, not trust interests, and challenged ANB's trustee fees and the lack of an accounting. The appellate court modified the summary judgment to declare that Charles Veigel's will granted life estates free of trust but affirmed the summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations barring R.W.'s claims for disgorgement of fees, accounting, and damages.

Trust LawLife EstatesStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyAccountingInter Vivos TrustTestamentary TrustProperty CodeCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,415 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