Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – Notice of Discharge of Debtor

Useful Rulings on Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – Notice of Discharge of Debtor

Recent Rulings on Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – Notice of Discharge of Debtor

CHONG HUI RHEE VS LAURA RYU

Plaintiffs filed a voluntary Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition on April 23, 2008, stating their combined monthly disposable income was $1,400 of financial assistance from family. (RJN, Exh. 1, pg. 3, 16, 33.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TALBOT VS CARDINAL FINANCIAL HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF MICHAEL TALBOT BY PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC

Talbot answered “No” in response to both questions and has not disclosed his claims alleged herein and filed within days after obtaining a discharge from Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Where a debtor fails to disclose a lender liability claim in bankruptcy proceedings the doctrines of equitable and judicial estoppel preclude the debtor from later litigating that claim. (Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC ( 2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1609.)

  • Hearing

MID-CITIES FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION VS. MARY K. BRYANT

Bryant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in December 2013. The underlying judgment debt was discharged in the bankruptcy, but the recorded abstract, which is considered a valid lien, was not. The lien expires on March 20, 2022. MCT applies to renew the underlying judgment as to its in rem aspect so MCT may renew the lien. The motion is unopposed. The amount of the renewed lien would be $27,296.68. Analysis Code of Civil Procedure § 683.140 governs applications to renew judgments.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CORREA V. IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION

Monetary Sanctions 2 Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $3,147.50 against Defendant and its counsel. 3 Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which states in 4 relevant part: 5 The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully 6 makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted

  • Hearing

PAUL ROLLINS VS RELIANT URGENT CARE ET AL

(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

  • Hearing

OMOTOSHO VS. KINGSMEAD ASSET H

Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on January 19, 2011. (RJN Exs. C, D.) They received a discharge on April 19, 2011. (FAC at ¶ 9; RJN Ex. E.) On September 14, 2017, the Subject Loan was assigned to Kingsmead and the assignment was recorded on September 21, 2017. (RJN Ex. F.) MTC recorded a Notice of Default against the Subject Property on April 6, 2018. (RJN Ex. G.) A Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded on July 13, 2018. (RJN Ex. H.)

  • Hearing

ANDRANIK AVEDYAN VS ALIS AVEDYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

In 2012, Garnik Jerry Keshishian filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, and was granted a discharge, but had failed to disclose as an asset his interest in the subject property and the deed of trust in his bankruptcy proceeding. [UMF No. 3, and evidence cited; Kurtz Decl., para. 3; RFJN, Ex. D].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SANG KUE CHYUN, ET AL. VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

The case converted to Chapter 7 on April 4, 2018, and on June 13, 2018, the Court entered an Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay in favor of Wilmington with respect to the Property. The Court denied the discharge on April 4, 2019 and dismissed the matter. (RJN, Exhs. 20-22.) On July 22, 2019, Chyun filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition but did not identify of the claims that he raises in this case against the defendants. Plaintiff received a discharge on January 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS CITY OF NORWALK, ET AL.

Code[5] chapter 7, §§ 8550-668. The purpose of the ESA and the policy of the state is that all emergency services functions shall be coordinated as far as possible with the comparable functions of its political subdivisions, the federal government, and private agencies, to the end that the most effective use may be made of all resources for dealing with an emergency. §8550.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KATHY L COX ET AL VS VN PARTNERSHIP ET AL

In Cloud, plaintiff employee had, after she was terminated, but before she filed her wrongful termination action, filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy and did not disclose any claim or potential claim against her employer in her schedule of assets. 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES

(a) Not later than 30 days from the date of service of a copy of a decision or order issued by the state board under this division, other than a decision or order issued pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 13550) of Chapter 7, any aggrieved party may file with the superior court a petition for writ of mandate for review of the decision or order.

  • Hearing

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

On July 9, 2020, the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed its “Statement Regarding Scope of Automatic Stay Arising from Nasrin Shakeri Nino’s Bankruptcy.” The filing of a bankruptcy proceeding operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial . . . action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case.” (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • 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.

On July 9, 2020, the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed its “Statement Regarding Scope of Automatic Stay Arising from Nasrin Shakeri Nino’s Bankruptcy.” The filing of a bankruptcy proceeding operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial . . . action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case.” (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CORREA V. IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION

Monetary Sanctions 2 Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $3,147.50 against Defendant and its counsel. 3 Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which states in 4 relevant part: 5 The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully 6 makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted

  • Hearing

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Property was “abandoned to him” following the discharge of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy action. (Compl. ¶ 110.) Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action closely relate to the aforementioned legal theories. In his third cause of action for quiet title, Plaintiff seeks quiet title to the Property based on the legal theories articulated ante.

  • Hearing

ANDRANIK AVEDYAN VS ALIS AVEDYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The argument is that Kashishian had listed only $60,884.21 of debts he sought to discharge in his bankruptcy proceeding, and paid a sum in settlement in the bankruptcy to preserve the validity of the lien and discharge the other debts, and the Chapter 7 Trustee then recorded a substitution of trustee and full reconveyance of the Kashishian deed of trust. [UMF Nos. 17, 18, 19, and evidence cited].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MICHAEL KEITH WILLIAMS VS DRAKE BUCHANAN

Williams filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy on November 5, 2019. Civic RJN Ex. 1, p. 1. Williams’ claims against Civic’s foreclosure arose prior to his filing of bankruptcy and were identified in the bankruptcy schedules. Civic RJN Ex. 2, p.16. Williams’ cause of action is an asset of the bankruptcy estate and only the bankruptcy trustee has standing to prosecute the action. Williams provides evidence demonstrating that the bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed without discharge on March 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DIRECT CAPITAL V. DANIEL COOPER

Although the declaration in support of the motion appears to justify entry of an order fixing recoverable post-judgment attorney fees incurred in collection efforts in the amount of $18,997.50, the court notes that while counsel draws the court’s attention to the judgment debtor’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing on February 28, 2019 (Exhibit 2.) and declares that it was dismissed, counsel has not attached any notification or order from the U.S.

  • Hearing

FLEEMAN V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

  • Hearing

KELLOGG SQUARE LLC VS WARREN BUTLER

Defendant had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on June 14, 2017. He received his discharge on December 11, 2017. The confession of judgment is for post-petition rent for the premises and is not subject to the discharge in bankruptcy. Defendant says he did not knowingly sign the declaration, even though he was represented by counsel. He also points out his attorney submitted a declaration stating that he understood the confession of judgment would not be executed if he moved out as agreed.

  • Hearing

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

Sanctions “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.290(d).)

  • Hearing

MYRNA KAWAKITA VS GEORGE TASHJIAN MD ET AL

In that case, after his case was reopened, Chapter 7 debtor, a physician, filed a motion to enforce discharge injunction against putative creditors who had filed a prepetition state-court medical malpractice claim against debtor in connection with physician’s care of one of them during childbirth. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, holding that the discharge injunction prohibited the plaintiffs from continuing their action against debtor, even nominally.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

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

In In re Nordlund, even though a bank noted in several letters mailed to a discharged Chapter 7 debtor that the mortgage debt was discharged and they were not personally liable, the bank was held in violation of the discharge injunction by mailing the debtor account statements and seemingly innocuous letters regarding homeowners' insurance and whether their property was vacant. See In re Nordlund, supra, at 519. Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Loan was discharged in his 2011 Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

  • Hearing

OMOTOSHO VS. KINGSMEAD ASSET HOLDING TRUST

Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on January 19, 2011. (RJN Exs. C, D.) They received a discharge on April 19, 2011. (Complaint at ¶ 12; RJN Ex. E.) Plaintiffs allege that the account secured by this Deed of Trust was discharged by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 2011. (Complaint at ¶ 12.) On September 14, 2017, the subject loan was assigned to Kingsmead and the assignment was recorded on September 21, 2017. (RJN Ex. F.) MTC recorded a Notice of Default against the Subject Property on April 6, 2018.

  • Hearing

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

In In re Nordlund, even though a bank noted in several letters mailed to a discharged Chapter 7 debtor that the mortgage debt was discharged and they were not personally liable, the bank was held in violation of the discharge injunction by mailing the debtor account statements and seemingly innocuous letters regarding homeowners' insurance and whether their property was vacant. See In re Nordlund, supra, at 519. Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Loan was discharged in his 2011 Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.