In re Henson

21 Citing cases

  1. In re Stoller

    351 B.R. 605 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    The Debtor: (i) failed to identify various proprietorships, alter-ego corporations and personal aliases under which he conducts business; (ii) failed to disclose income, including, at a minimum, the rental income received from the Property; (iii) failed to disclose interests in residential properties; (iv) provided inaccurate information such as his place of residence and that his deceased father was at time of his bankruptcy filing the custodian of his corporate records; (v) failed initially to disclose his prior bankruptcy; (vi) failed to identify the transfer of the Property to his daughter within a year of the Petition Date; and (vii) failed to identify certain creditors in his Schedules. The Debtor's disregard for his obligations under Bankruptcy Chapter 13 provide an independent basis to conclude that this case was filed in bad faith and should be converted. Sidebottom, 430 F.3d at 899; Love, 957 F.2d at 1350; see also In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 752 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) ("However, it is not necessary to find that Debtor filed bankruptcy in bad faith in order to conclude that cause exists to remove this case from Chapter 13, because Debtor has shown that he is not capable of performing as a Chapter 13 Debtor. Debtor has not provided reliable information about his financial condition, he will not make himself available to do so in future . . . Cause therefore exists for concluding that this bankruptcy case cannot remain in Chapter 13."). III. The Debtor's Bad Faith Is Evident From The Fact That HeWould Be Denied A General Discharge In A Chapter 7 Proceeding DueTo His Failure To Maintain Records And Perhaps Due To OtherConduct

  2. In re Nelson

    343 B.R. 671 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 105 times
    Noting that the decisions under § 1112(b)informs the analysis of § 1307(c)

    Since this language parallels the chapter ll conversion and dismissal provision, decisions under Bankruptcy Code § 1112(b) inform the analysis of § 1307(c). Compare 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) (2000) ("whichever is in the best interest [sic] of creditors and the estate, for cause"),with 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c); In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 752-53 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003). This part of § 1112(b) was reworded by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-8 ("2005 Act"), to: "whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, if the movant establishes cause."

  3. Karamoussayan v. Mass. Dep't of Revenue (In re Karamoussayan)

    656 B.R. 652 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    Persistent inaccuracies and omissions in a debtor's financial disclosures to the bankruptcy court can give rise to "cause" under § 1307(c). See, e.g., In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 752 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) (finding cause existed primarily because debtor "ha[d] not provided reliable information about his financial condition" and "ha[d] shown that he [wa]s not capable of performing as a [c]hapter 13 [d]ebtor"); see also In re Roberts, 2013 WL 441378, at *3 (recognizing that "[f]ailure to make accurate disclosure in bankruptcy documents" constitutes cause under § 1307(c)) (citation omitted); Baker v. Salamone, No. 1:11-cv-1423 (GLS), 2012 WL 1086069, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2012) (affirming dismissal for cause under § 1307(c) due to "discrepancies" on debtor's schedules and petition). Here, the record is replete with budget reports filed by the Debtor containing sales figures that were vastly different from the amounts reported on his sales income tax returns filed with the MDOR.

  4. Jimenez v. ARCPE 1, LLP (In re Jimenez)

    BAP No. CC-20-1275-FSG (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021)

    The subsections offer a nonexclusive list of circumstances that can amount to cause. In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 750-51 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) ("[T]he list set forth at § 1307(c)(1)-(10) is a non-exclusive one that does not define the term 'cause' but merely illustrates examples of it."). "Dismissal under § 1307(c) is a two-step process.

  5. In re Jimenez

    BAP CC-20-1275-FSG (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    The subsections offer a nonexclusive list of circumstances that can amount to cause. In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 750-51 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) ("[T]he list set forth at § 1307(c)(1)-(10) is a non-exclusive one that does not define the term 'cause' but merely illustrates examples of it."). "Dismissal under § 1307(c) is a two-step process.

  6. James v. Maney (In re James)

    BAP No. AZ-20-1260-FBS (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jun. 29, 2021)

    Most importantly, the standard under § 1307(c) is "cause," and the subsections are a nonexclusive list of circumstances that can amount to cause. In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 750-51 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) ("[T]he list set forth at § 1307(c)(1)-(10) is a non-exclusive one that does not define the term 'cause' but merely illustrates examples of it."). The record amply supports the bankruptcy court's determination that cause existed based on Mr. James' failure to do the basic things that a chapter 13 debtor must do promptly: make complete and candid disclosures; file a comprehensible and confirmable plan; and timely begin plan payments.

  7. In re James

    BAP AZ-20-1260-FBS (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jun. 29, 2021)

    Most importantly, the standard under § 1307(c) is "cause," and the subsections are a nonexclusive list of circumstances that can amount to cause. In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 750-51 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) ("[T]he list set forth at § 1307(c)(1)-(10) is a non-exclusive one that does not define the term 'cause' but merely illustrates examples of it."). The record amply supports the bankruptcy court's determination that cause existed based on Mr. James' failure to do the basic things that a chapter 13 debtor must do promptly: make complete and candid disclosures; file a comprehensible and confirmable plan; and timely begin plan payments.

  8. In re Grigsby

    Case Number: 19-10027 (Bankr. W.D. La. Mar. 13, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Debtors' disregard for their obligations under chapter 13 bankruptcy provide an independent basis to conclude that this case was filed in bad faith and should be converted. Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365, 373-74, (2007); see also In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 752 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) (holding that "it is not necessary to find that Debtor filed bankruptcy in bad faith in order to conclude that cause exists to remove this case from Chapter 13, because Debtor has shown that he is not capable of performing as a Chapter 13 Debtor. Debtor has not provided reliable information about his financial condition, he will not make himself available to do so in future ... Cause therefore exists for concluding that this bankruptcy case cannot remain in Chapter 13"); see also In re Stoller, 351 B.R. 605 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006) ("[i]n deciding whether Chapter 13 petition was filed in bad faith, so as to provide 'cause' for order converting case, bankruptcy court considers both objective evidence that a petition promotes a fundamentally unfair result and subjective evidence that debtor filed petition for a fundamentally unfair purpose not in line with spirit of the Bankruptcy Code"); see also In re Goodvin, 548 B.R. 806 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2016) ("[b]ottom line for court, in deciding

  9. In re Red Door Lounge, Inc.

    559 B.R. 728 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    The determination under § 1112(b) rests with the sound discretion of the court. Pioneer Liquidating Corp. v. United States Trustee (In re Consol. Pioneer Mortg. Entities) , 264 F.3d 803, 806–07 (9th Cir. 2001) ; In re Henson , 289 B.R. 741, 752–53 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003) ; In re Shockley , 15 Mont. B.R. at 116; In re BTS, Inc. , 247 B.R. at 309. The initial burden of proof is on the moving party.

  10. In re Hinesley Family Ltd. P'ship No. 1

    460 B.R. 547 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Finding bad faith based on gross mismanagement of the debtor's financial affairs and failure to cooperate/disclose information

    Pioneer Liquidating Corp. v. United States Trustee (In re Consol. Pioneer Mortg. Entities), 264 F.3d 803, 806–07 (9th Cir.2001); In re Henson, 289 B.R. 741, 752–53 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2003); In re Shockley, 15 Mont. B.R. at 116; In re BTS, Inc., 247 B.R. at 309. The initial burden of proof is on the moving party.