What is a Bankruptcy Discharge of Judgment?

Useful Resources for Bankruptcy Discharge of Judgment

Recent Rulings on Bankruptcy Discharge of Judgment

SHERRI BOX, ET AL. VS RICHARD DORFMAN

On its face the complaint does not support a claim that it violates the Bankruptcy discharge. Additionally, on September 11, 2020, in a Bankruptcy Court Order not brought to the Court’s attention by Dorfman, the exact same claim – that filing this complaint violated May 15, 2020 Bankruptcy discharge-- was specifically rejected by the Bankruptcy Court that issued that discharge.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

COSTARAKIS VS BOTTINI JR

The Ninth Circuit went on to state: "A bankruptcy discharge thus protects the debtor from efforts to collect the debtor's discharged debt indirectly and outside of the bankruptcy proceedings: it does not however. absolve a non-debtor's liabilities for that same "such" debt." 961 F.3d at 1083. The Fifth Circuit specifically stated in Stanley v. Trinchard, 500 F. 3d 411, 418 (5th Cir.2007).

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERTO ALCARAZ ET AL VS JEE SOOK CHUNG ET AL

The law is clear that a bankruptcy discharge forecloses liability against Defendants for this personal injury action, which was disclosed to the Bankruptcy Court and therefore discharged: The Bankruptcy Code provides that a discharge of a debtor (1) voids any judgment at any time obtained, to the extent that such judgment is a determination of the personal liability of the debtor with respect to any debt discharged . . . ; and (2) operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DALE HARMS VS. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

Furthermore, it is not clear that Plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge in Case No. 4:15-bk-43109 qualifies as an adverse determination. Regardless, he meets the five-case threshold without it.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DARRELL GEOFFROY, ET AL. VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, ET AL.

Defendant’s argument against the allegation of a bankruptcy discharge is persuasive. However, this only disposes part of the claim for quiet title. As to the remaining part of the COA (i.e.: Compl. ¿17), Defendant argues that Plaintiffs lack standing and failed to allege tender of the default. As to the standing argument, the argument assumes facts not alleged in the Complaint and not judicially noticeable.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

BLEEKER VS CONTINENTAL HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY

"'The bankruptcy discharge does not prevent post-petition enforcement of valid liens. The secured creditor may proceed to enforce the lien, as an in rem action, and is not barred by the injunctive terms of 11 U.S.C. § 524.'" (Songer v. Cooney (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 387, 391 [Citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BLEEKER VS CONTINENTAL HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY

"'The bankruptcy discharge does not prevent post-petition enforcement of valid liens. The secured creditor may proceed to enforce the lien, as an in rem action, and is not barred by the injunctive terms of 11 U.S.C. § 524.'" (Songer v. Cooney (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 387, 391 [Citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ETHEL MATTHEWS VS RESMAE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.

In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations relating to Defendants treatment of Plaintiff after her bankruptcy fail given that a Deed of Trust survives a bankruptcy discharge. (See In re Cortez (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) 191 B.R. 174.) Plaintiff fails to allege facts suggesting Defendants had knowledge of any of the purported misrepresentations they made. Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting she relied on any alleged misrepresentations to her detriment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KATHY L COX ET AL VS VN PARTNERSHIP ET AL

Plaintiff filed her complaint against the employer shortly after she received her bankruptcy discharge, and the bankruptcy case was closed while the action was pending. The Second District found that the trial court was correct that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claims, as the causes of action were the property of the bankruptcy estate.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

“When a bankruptcy discharge is entered, it replaces the automatic stay with a permanent injunction against such judicial proceedings.” (Weakly-Hoyt v. Foster (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 928, 931, citations omitted; see also 11 U.S.C § 362(c)(2)(C).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

“When a bankruptcy discharge is entered, it replaces the automatic stay with a permanent injunction against such judicial proceedings.” (Weakly-Hoyt v. Foster (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 928, 931, citations omitted; see also 11 U.S.C § 362(c)(2)(C).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

A bankruptcy discharge "operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any debt [subject to such discharge] as a personal liability of the debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived." 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.

· Exhibit 3: Notice of Entry of Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and Termination of Levine’s Automatic Litigation Stay, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, filed on October 17, 2017. · Exhibit 4: Request for Dismissal of Defendant Claire Levine, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, signed by the court on February 26, 2018. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) C.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

A bankruptcy discharge "operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any debt [subject to such discharge] as a personal liability of the debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived." 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

AULT CHIROPRACTIC, LLP VS ICRCO, INC

(2) Bankruptcy As an alternative basis for the invalidity of the Ohio judgment, iCRco asserts that its bankruptcy discharge invalidated Ault LLC’s claim.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

CALIFORNIA AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM, INC. VS DDC GROUP, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff’s attorney declares that the dismissal was mistakenly made as to the entire case, when the purpose was solely to dismiss DDC following its bankruptcy discharge. (Motion, Thai Decl., ¶¶2-4.) In opposition, CCD submits only a declaration by its counsel, who improperly opines that Plaintiff’s attorney’s error is insufficient to warrant relief. The Court admonishes CCD that any opposition to the Motion must comply with the requirements of Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IVAN RENE MOORE VS KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG

.); (7) this is a change in circumstances of which Plaintiff is fully aware; and (8) she has received a bankruptcy discharge for any damages Plaintiff could claim to have against her arising from her alleged taking of property as found in the Interlocutory Judgment. (Id.) Analysis “The facts essential to jurisdiction for a contempt proceeding are (1) the making of the order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance, [and] (4) wilful disobedience of the order.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2019

ALEXANDER LU VS RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC

On the merits, the Court finds that the new allegations of the SAC fail to sufficiently correct the deficiencies previously noted in this Court’s August 16, 2019 minute order sustaining the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), including the bar of the statute of limitations, as well as the judicial estoppel and res judicata bars flowing from plaintiff’s bankruptcy, bankruptcy proceedings and filings, and bankruptcy discharge.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.

· Exhibit 3: Notice of Entry of Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and Termination of Levine’s Automatic Litigation Stay, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, filed on October 17, 2017. · Exhibit 4: Request for Dismissal of Defendant Claire Levine, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, signed by the court on February 26, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SEGUI VS. ORIGINAL MIKE'S ENTERPRISES LLC

First, because bankruptcy discharge is a defense equally applicable to every member of the class, Segui is not atypical. OMRM’s Chapter 11 plan was confirmed on December 14, 2016, and the class period only runs to December 16, 2016. The class, as defined, appears to consist entirely of persons whose claims against OMRM arguably were discharged in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy discharge defense can be adjudicated on a classwide basis.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

However, because SLS was not required to send him monthly statements due to the bankruptcy discharge, it and the Loan owner did not waive their right to foreclose on the Property. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim that SLS cannot foreclose or collect six years of Loan interest from the foreclosure sale proceeds fails. (See, Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1088.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

LEASON VS. NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE

The SAC adds four causes of action: intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violation of bankruptcy discharge injunctions, and unfair competition. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortg. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023; see Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.) Fifth Cause of Action (Wrongful Foreclosure). The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

HUMBERTO LOPEZ-VELOZ VS SIGIFREDO R HERNANDEZ

At this time, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings, contending he recently received a bankruptcy discharge that includes Plaintiff’s claims in this suit. Defendant provides judicially noticeable evidence that he received a discharge of all of his debts, including those at issue in this lawsuit, on 5/21/18. Defendant timely and properly served the motion on Plaintiff. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 9/03/19. Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

MARTIN P MONTOYA VS. MELODY L GROVER

Mason argues that because Grover was named in Mason's bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy discharge injunction prohibits any further action against Mason. Grover says the injunction does not apply to fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Thus, Grover impliedly concedes that the injunction applies to the new claims. Finally, Grover expressly acknowledges that further discovery and all new dates will be needed if the motion is granted. This case has already been pending for more than two years.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DORAN VS. O'CONNOR-ROSE

While the Court may ultimately find these facts untrue, Defendant has established a triable issue of fact i.e. a contract, agreement, partnership or joint venture that arose after the bankruptcy discharge. Any such contract, agreement, partnership or joint venture would not be the subject of res judicata. Defendant also briefly makes an argument that the failure to disclose the contract, and partnership/joint venture results in those items being left in the bankruptcy estate.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.