In re Azbill

10 Citing cases

  1. Summit Inv. Mgmt. v. Connolly (In re Fog Cap Retail Inv'rs LLC)

    No. 22-1297 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024)

    In bankruptcy proceedings, actual notice is adequate even if formal notice is not received, and formal notice is not mandatory. See In re Azbill, No. 06-8074, 2008 WL 647407, at *6 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2008); see also In re Kong, No. CC-15-1371, 2016 WL 3267588, at *7 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 6, 2016). Here, the amended settlement agreement, the Foot Locker stipulation, and the interim distribution schedule (all properly noticed) contemplated the material terms of the Stratford stipulation, particularly the allowance of Stratford's claim for $6,500,000.

  2. Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame)

    986 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2021)   Cited 30 times
    Stating a bankruptcy court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo

    "[E]very conceivable interest of the debtor, future, nonpossessory, contingent, speculative, and derivative, is within the reach of § 541." Tyler v. DH Capital Mgmt., Inc. , 736 F.3d 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Azbill v. Kendrick (In re Azbill) , No. 06-8074, 2008 WL 647407 at *7, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 527 at *19-20 (6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 11, 2008) ). While § 541 dictates what interests are property of the estate pursuant to federal bankruptcy law, the "nature and extent of [the] property rights ... are determined by the ‘underlying [state] substantive law.’ "

  3. Underhill v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (In re Underhill)

    579 F. App'x 480 (6th Cir. 2014)   Cited 18 times
    Reversing a bankruptcy court's property-of-the-estate determination on the merits

    Id. at 6. As we recently recognized in Tyler v. DH Capital Management, Incorporated, however, "'[E]very conceivable interest of the debtor, future, nonpossessory, contingent, speculative, and derivative, is within the reach of § 541.'" 736 F.3d 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Azbill v. Kendrick (In re Azbill), No. 06-8074, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 527, at *19-20 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2008)). A claim, therefore, need only be "sufficiently rooted in the pre-bankruptcy past" to comprise part of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.

  4. Summit Inv. Mgmt. v. Conlly (In re Fog Cap Retail Inv'rs)

    Civil Action 20-cv-03823-PAB (D. Colo. Aug. 17, 2022)

    The Record makes clear that appellants had actual notice of the Stratford Stipulation and did not suffer a due process violation because “[n]otice is adequate when[,] although a party did not receive formal notice, actual notice was received.” In re Azbill, 385 B.R. 799, 2008 WL 647407, * 6 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008) (citing Creditors Comm. of Park Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Samuels, 766 F.2d 261, 263 (6th Cir. 1985)). “A bankruptcy procedural rule requiring notice is adequately complied with if a party not receiving formal notice receives actual notice and has an adequate opportunity to raise his objections.” In re Glinz, 66 B.R. 88, 91 (D.N.D. 1986); see also Azbill, 2008 WL 647407. Here, appellants do not contest that they received at least two forms of notice, via mail to appellants and via the bankruptcy court's CM/ECF system to appellants' counsel.

  5. Giron v. Zeytuna, Inc.

    597 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.D.C. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    ; see also, e.g. , Tyler v. DH Cap. Mgmt., Inc. , 736 F.3d 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2013) ("[E]very conceivable interest of the debtor, future, nonpossessory, contingent, speculative, and derivative, is within the reach of § 541.") (alteration in original) (quoting In re Azbill , 385 B.R. 799, 2008 WL 647407, at *7 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008) ); accordChartschlaa v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 538 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2008) ; In re Yonikus , 996 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds byLaw v. Siegel , 571 U.S. 415, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146 (2014) ; see alsoIn re Porrett , 564 B.R. 57, 67 (D. Idaho 2016) ("Bankruptcy and appellate courts in and out of the Ninth Circuit agree that property of the bankruptcy estate includes accrued causes of action, even if the debtors were unaware of the claims at the time they filed their bankruptcy petition." (emphasis omitted)).

  6. Elswick v. Miller (In re Elswick)

    Civil Action No. 3: 11-87-DCR (E.D. Ky. Jun. 12, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Indeed, "'every conceivable interest of the debtor, future, nonpossessory, contingent, speculative, and derivative, is within the reach of § 541.'" Azbill v. Kendrick (In re Azbill), No. 06-8074, 2008 WL 647407 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2008) (quoting In re Yonikus, 996 F.2d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1993)). Therefore, even a "contingent future interest is a legally cognizable interest, and thus property of the estate."

  7. Advantage Healthplan, Inc. v. Potter

    391 B.R. 521 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 40 times
    Finding that the possibility of litigation does not meet the person aggrieved standard

    As such, Advantage did not suffer a due process violation because "[n]otice is adequate when although a party did not receive formal notice, actual notice was received." In re Azbill, 385 B.R. 799, 2008 WL 647407, * 6 (6th Cir. BAP 2008) (citing Creditors Comm. of Park Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Samuels, 766 F.2d 261, 263 (6th Cir. 1985)). Indeed, "[a] bankruptcy procedural rule requiring notice is adequately complied with if a party not receiving formal notice receives actual notice and has an adequate opportunity to raise his objections."

  8. In re Dollman

    583 B.R. 268 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2017)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that Bankruptcy Rules 1009 and 9006(b) require debtors to obtain leave of court to amend schedules to disclose a previously omitted asset, even if the case is later reopened, and that the Court will apply the "excusable neglect" standard

    Id. at 394. Other cases that have applied the broad approach include: In re Azbill , 385 B.R. 799 (6th Cir. BAP 2008) ; In re Smith , 2017 WL 1457942, at *4 (9th Cir. BAP Apr. 24, 2017) ; In re Weeden , 2005 WL 6960220, at *3 (9th Cir. BAP Sept. 6, 2005) ; In re Dougan , 350 B.R. 892, 895 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2006) ; In re Mathis , 2007 WL 954756, at *1 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2007).

  9. In re Wright

    566 B.R. 457 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    Finally, " ‘a bankruptcy court's decision to approve or disapprove a settlement rests in the sound discretion of the bankruptcy [court.]’ " In re Azbill , 385 B.R. 799 (6th Cir. BAP 2008) (table) (citation omitted). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019.

  10. Wojcik v. Gold (In re Daher)

    522 B.R. 743 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2014)

    Several of these provisions bring into the estate property in which the debtor did not have a possessory interest at the time the bankruptcy proceedings commenced.”)(footnote omitted). See also Johnston v. Hazlett ( In re Johnston ), 209 F.3d 611 (6th Cir.2000); Lyon v. Eiseman ( In re Forbes ), 372 B.R. 321 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.2007); Azbill v. Kendrick ( In re Azbill ), 385 B.R. 799, 2008 WL 647407 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.2008) (table). Appellants admitted that the Debtor owned the insurance policy and that the mortgage companies were simply loss payees.