LAW OFFICE OF D.L. DRAIN

1702 W. Camelback, Suite 264

 Phoenix, AZ 85015

Phone: 602.246.7106

Fax: 602.249.1969

DDrain@DianeDrain.com

 
   


   
 

 

BANKRUPTCY CASE LAW:
QUALIFYING AS A DEBTOR

The following is for the exclusive use of attorneys.  This firm does not make any representations as to the accuracy or current status of any case cited herein.   



 

 


POST-BAPCPA:
In re Jewell 347 B.R. 120 (Bkrtcy.W.D.N.Y. 2006) JOHN C. NINFO, II, Bankruptcy Judge  DEBTOR WHO WAS NOT DOMICILED IN STATE OF FILING FOR PRECEDING 730 DAYS AND IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIONS OF STATE OF PREVIOUS RESIDENCE MAY CLAIM THE FEDERAL EXEMPTIONS

Debtor moved from Colorado to New York less than 730 days prior to filing chapter 7 in New York, thus debtor was not eligible for N.Y. exemptions. Debtor claimed Colorado exemptions. Colorado was an "opt-out" state and its exemptions under Colorado law were available only to debtors who resided in Colorado at the time the bankruptcy was filed. The court ruled that N.Y. exemptions were not available due to the 730-day rule, and the Colorado exemptions were not available due to the Colorado exemption statute, but that the language of § 522(b)(3) permitting debtors in those circumstances to elect the Federal exemptions.

WARNING: PRE-BAPCPA
IN RE: UMALI (10/03/03 - No. 02-15010/16379) (9th Cir) A bankruptcy petition filed in violation of a court-imposed 180-day bar is properly excluded from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, even though the Court later modified the Order removing the 180-day bar.  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0215010p.pdf

BANK OF CHINA v. HUANG (01/14/02 - No. 00-57056) (9th Cir. Ct App) Settlement agreement where party agreed not to declare bankruptcy does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later bankruptcy petition for fraud claims where fraud claims were not incorporated into the original settlement agreement.  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0057056p.pdf

Can the Debtor file a new 13 while his 7 is open?  In re Keach, 243 B.R. 851 (Bankr. 1st Cir. 2000); In re Turner, 207 B.R. 373 (Bankr. 2nd Cir. 1997); In re Strohscher, 278 B.R. 432 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2002). In re Strohscher (Bankr. N.D. Ohio) (6th Cir) Rule 1015  Debtor allowed to maintain Chapter 13 case filed prior to closing of same debtor's Chapter 7 case.

  BACK TO BANKRUPTCY CASE LAW Index

 

OPINION SUMMARIES ARCHIVE FindLaw archives case law summaries of opinion issued since September 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court, all thirteen Federal Circuit Courts, the California Supreme Court, the California Appellate Courts, and the New York Court of Appeals.  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casesummary/index.html

goldbreak.JPG    Arizona Exemptions    goldbreak.JPG
 

DISCLAIMER This site is not intended to be advertising and the Law Office of D.L. Drain, P.A. and the attorneys employed by that firm do not seek to represent anyone in a state where this site may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.  The information provided in this web site is for general information purposes only. All the documents, forms and information on these web pages are generic in nature and must not be regarded as legal advice. The law changes periodically and we make no representations that any of the information is accurate. You are not to make any inference from this website that our firm represents you or would be able to represent you; or that the information contained herein applies to your specific circumstances. You must seek legal counsel to ascertain your rights and obligations.

 

 

Copyright © 1997-2007, Law Office of D.L. Drain, P.A.
Designed by The Legal Resource Group, Inc. & IMT Zone, Inc.

Viewing the information on this site is not intended to constitute legal advice or to create any attorney-client relationship.
Please read
our disclaimer and additional copyright notices

 Your ALT-Text here