|
The sites below were reviewed for content which is relevant to the Ohio bankruptcy issues appearing within
this site. For more information regarding our
selection of resources, see our review policy. We welcome all sites submitted for review and respond to all requests within 3 business days.
Credit Counseling Information:
- Credit Counseling - refresh.
Recent Notable Opinions of the Supreme Court of The United States:
Lamie v. United States, No. 02-693 (2004), Argued November 10, 2003, Decided January 26, 2004, CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
Prior to 1994, 11 U.S.C. 330(a) authorized courts to award trustees, examiners,
professional persons employed under 11 U.S.C. 327, or debtors' attorneys reasonable compensation for
services rendered. In 1994, Congress amended 11 U.S.C. 330(a) by deleting "or to the debtor's attorney" from what was
11 U.S.C. 330(a) and is now Sec. 330(a)(1). This change was apparently a legislative drafting error. The
section is missing "or" that infects its grammar. And its inclusion of "attorney" in what was Sec.
330(a)(1) and is now Sec. 330(a)(1)(A) defeats the parallelism between
current Secs. 330(a)(1) ("trustee, examiner, or professional person") and 330(a)(1)(A) ("trustee, examiner,
professional person, or attorney"). In this case, the petitioner filed an application
seeking attorney's fees under new 11 U.S.C. 327330(a)(1) for the time he spent working on a behalf of a debtor in a chapter 7
proceeding. The Government objected. Petitioner admitted he was not employed by the trustee or
approved by the court , but nonetheless contended new 11 U.S.C. 330(a)(1) authorized a fee award because
he was a "debtor's attorney." In denying the petitioner's application, the Bk. Court, District Court, and 4th
Circuit all held 11 U.S.C.330(a)(1) does not authorize payment of attorney's fees to debtors' attorneys
unless the attorney has been appointed under Sec. 327. Held: under the Code's plain language, Sec. 330(a)(1) does not authorize compensation awards to debtors'
attorneys from estate funds unless employed under 11 U.S.C.327.
Recent Notable Opinions from Ohio Bankruptcy Courts
Brown v. Brooks, Case No. 97-16744 Chapter 7, Adversary No. 01-1389, decided January 3, 2003 by the Ohio
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District. Ex-husband Brown filed an adversary proceeding in connection with a
Chapter 7 case filed by Brooks, his former wife. In Chapter 7, Brooks requested discharge of her debts created
by the decree of dissolution of marriage (and agreed separation agreement within). In particular, Brown sought a
determination of non-dischargeable status while Brooks responded with a motion for summary judgment discharging
the adversary proceeding. The Ohio Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District held: The Creditor has the burden
of proof to show a debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a). Once the Creditor establishes the debt may
be covered by this section, the burden of proof shifts to the debtor, who must show, by clear and convincing
evidence, any applicable exception which may allow discharge. Hart v. Molino (In re Molino) 225 B.R. 904, 907
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1198). In this particular case, because The Husband/Creditor provided proof (A) the debt arose
from a dissolution decree, and (B) all rights to spousal support where waived. Because of custom drafting of
agreements included within the agreed separation agreement, the Ohio Bankruptcy Court found a genuine issue of
fact and required strict proof of all applicable exceptions.
Recent Notable Opinions from Ohio Bankruptcy Courts
Brown v. Brooks, Case No. 97-16744 Chapter 7, Adversary No. 01-1389, decided January 3, 2003 by the Ohio
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District. Ex-husband Brown filed an adversary proceeding in connection with a
Chapter 7 case filed by Brooks, his former wife. In Chapter 7, Brooks requested discharge of her debts created
by the decree of dissolution of marriage (and agreed separation agreement within). In particular, Brown sought a
determination of non-dischargeable status while Brooks responded with a motion for summary judgment discharging
the adversary proceeding. The Ohio Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District held: The Creditor has the burden
of proof to show a debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a). Once the Creditor establishes the debt may
be covered by this section, the burden of proof shifts to the debtor, who must show, by clear and convincing
evidence, any applicable exception which may allow discharge. Hart v. Molino (In re Molino) 225 B.R. 904, 907
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1198). In this particular case, because The Husband/Creditor provided proof (A) the debt arose
from a dissolution decree, and (B) all rights to spousal support where waived. Because of custom drafting of
agreements included within the agreed separation agreement, the Ohio Bankruptcy Court found a genuine issue of
fact and required strict proof of all applicable exceptions.
|
