In re Alanya

3 Citing cases

  1. Webb v. Isaacson (In re Isaacson)

    478 B.R. 763 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2012)   Cited 36 times
    Finding that non-disclosure of business is material because it germane to the discovery of the a debtor' assets and state of their financial affairs, irrespective of whether disclosure would have yielded a more favorable outcome for creditors or estate administration

    Id. at 252,citing Chalik v. Moorefield (In re Chalik), 748 F.2d 616, 618 (11th Cir.1984).Silvers v. Alanya (In re Alanya), Adv. No. 09–1452, 2010 WL 5348728, at *4 (Bankr.E.D.Va. Dec. 21, 2010) (slip copy). Section 727(a)(4) does not, however, operate to penalize debtors for honest mistakes or misstatements. Baye v. McEachern (In re McEachern), No. EC–07–1419–JuMoD, 2008 WL 8448836, at *4 n. 7 (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 7, 2008) (slip copy).

  2. McDermott v. Dunne (In re Dunne)

    Case No.: 15-33831 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    d at 178); See Chalik v. Moorefield (In re Chalik), 748 F.2d 616, 618 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing cases and stating that although there is no indication that the concealed information would have or could have revealed assets available for creditors, "that circumstance does not excuse the concealment of information, which is necessary to the investigation of a debtor's financial condition"); Sheehan & Assocs. PLC v. Lowe, No. 12-11768, 2012 WL 3079251, *7, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105871, *18-19 (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2012) (stating that "the question is not whether the false oaths affect the administration of the Debtor's estate or discovery of assets, business dealing, or the existence and disposition of debtor's property as claimed by the debtor, but whether the false oaths bear a relation to these things" and concluding that "[i]t is not [debtor's] role to decide what is relevant or important to the administration of his estate and what is not" (emphasis in original)); Silvers v. Alanya (In re Alanya), Adv. No. 09-1452, 2010 WL 5348728, *6, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4949, *20-21 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 2010) (addressing § 727(a)(4)(A) and stating that "the principle of 'no harm, no foul' has no applicability, and a false statement is not made less material simply because, at the end of the day, a correct statement would not have affected the administration of the case"). A debtor's marital status is an essential piece of information that generally affects calculations under the means test and under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) that are necessary in determining whether granting relief would be an abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7. More importantly, in this case it bears a relationship to the estate because it concerns the discovery of assets and/or the existence of property of the estate and, specifically, the amount of the income tax refund to which Defendant was entitled.

  3. Kirtland Fed. Credit Union v. Mesibov (In re Mesibov)

    No. 13-10864-j7 (Bankr. D.N.M. Jun. 12, 2014)

    "The test seeks to ensure that debtors who can afford to repay at least a portion of what they owe their creditors do not abuse the bankruptcy process by filing under chapter 7." Silvers v. Alanys (In re Alanya), 2010 WL 5348728 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2010). The "means test is a blind legislative formula serving to determine, under an objective standard, whether the Court must presume that a filing is abusive."