Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re Barlock

121 B.R. 13 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1990)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Barlock

13 Citing cases

  1. In re Sinclair

    Case No. SV 05-14975 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2006)

    This burden must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 15 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1990). "[E]xemptions are scrutinized in light of their impact upon a debtor's estate.

  2. In re Alam

    336 B.R. 320 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005)

    S.D. Ohio 2001) citing In re Hollar, 79 B.R. 294, 296 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1987); In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 15 (Bankr.N.D. Ohio. 1990); In re Ciotta, 222 B.R. 626, 629 (Bankr. C.D. Ca. 1998).

  3. In re Harrington

    Case No. 03-10490 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2003)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that objector "cannot escape the burden of proof assigned to an objecting party under Rule 4003(c) because the exemption claim relates to a settlement agreement which fails to allocate damages into specific categories of recovery"

    , In re Patterson, 128 B.R. at 739-40 ["If we compare Section 522 with other sections of the Bankruptcy Code, it becomes evident that Congress did not intend for debtors to pay a portion of the attorney's fees out of their exempt property. . . .If the estate authorizes the employment of the attorney and the attorney recovers property for the estate, the attorney's fees should be paid out of the estate regardless of whether portions of the property recovered are exempt."]; In re Turner, 190 B.R. 836, 841 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1996); In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 15 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1990) [refusing to surcharge the debtor's exemption with a proportionate share of the attorney's fees owed to special counsel]; 2 WILLIAM L. NORTON, JR., NORTON BANKRUPTCY LAW AND PRACTICE 2D § 46.14 (2003). The entire recovery arising from a smaller cause of action could conceivably be protected by exemptions.

  4. In re Long, S.D.Ohio 2001)

    Case No. 99-56146, Chapter 7 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2001)   Cited 3 times

    Taylor v. Freeland and Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 643-646 (1992); In re Moore, 175 B.R. 13, 15-16 (Bankr.S.D.Oh. 1994); In re Zimmer, 154 B.R. 705, 706-710 (Bankr. S.D. Oh. 1993). Upon the filing of a timely objection, debtors remain entitled to the presumption that their claims are prima facie valid, and it is incumbent upon the objecting parties to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Hollar, 79 B.R. 294, 296 (Bankr.S.D.Oh. 1987); In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 15 (Bankr.N.D.Oh. 1990); In re Ciotta, 222 B.R. 626, 629 (Bankr.C.D.Ca. 1998). As noted by the Court in the case of In re Ciotta, ". . . A debtor is not required to make an affirmative showing that a claimed exemption is appropriate. . . . The debtor only needs to characterize, either expressly or impliedly, that the claimed exemption falls within an exempt category . . . ."

  5. In re Lazin

    221 B.R. 982 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that conversion of non-exempt assets into homestead with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is not an exception to the homestead exemption

    It is well established law that it is the objecting party's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Debtor is not entitled to the exemptions claimed. In re Miller, 188 B.R. 302, 307 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1995) (citing In re Ehnle, 124 B.R. 361 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1991); and In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1990)). Once the objecting party has made a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the Debtor to prove his entitlement to the exemptions.

  6. In re Swanson

    207 B.R. 76 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Imposing civil contempt under § 105 for failure to vacate property

    Under normal circumstances, a trustee is prohibited from surcharging a debtor's exemptions with administrative expenses. See id.; Scott v. United States Trustee (In re Allen), 203 B.R. 925, 929-30 (W.D.Va. 1997); In re Turner, 190 B.R. 836, 841 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1996) (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 522 (k)); In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 15 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1990); In re Duby, 98 B.R. 126, 127 (Bankr.D.R.I. 1989). The right to exemptions is not absolute, however.

  7. In re Hoppes

    202 B.R. 595 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1996)   Cited 12 times
    Employing same factors as Flygstad

    The Trustee bears the burden of proof on his objection to the Debtors' claimed exemptions by the preponderance of the evidence. In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 15 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1990) (citing Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4003(c)); see also Lester v. Storey (In re Storey), 141 B.R. 157, 161-62 (S.D.Ohio 1991). WHETHER THE DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPTION FOR TOOLS OF THE TRADE

  8. In re Patton

    200 B.R. 172 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1996)   Cited 21 times
    Awarding prejudgment interest, despite the good faith dispute over liability

    The Trustee also bears the burden of proof on his objection to the Debtors' claimed exemptions by the preponderance of the evidence. In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 15 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1990) (citing Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4003(c)); see also Lester v. Storey (In re Lester), 141 B.R. 157 (S.D.Ohio 1991). WHETHER DANIEL'S POSTPETITION, PRECONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE

  9. In re Wood

    190 B.R. 788 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1996)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that factors used in determining the appropriate valuation date include: “ the impact of the debtor's efforts on the postpetition change in value; the expectancies of the parties at the time they may have made the loan agreement (if any); the desirability of uniformity; the convenience of administration; the equitable concept that those who bear the risk should benefit from the rise in value; a resulting windfall to any one party should be discouraged; the bankruptcy policy set forth in section 552(b) which extends prepetition liens to postpetition proceeds in certain situations; the bankruptcy policy set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), which encourages the tendering of adequate protection payments to a creditor holding depreciating collateral; the off-stated policy of bankruptcy to secure the debtor a ‘fresh start;’ the result of utilizing a specific date of valuation on the bankruptcy itself including that impact upon senior and junior lien creditors; and whether the party benefitting from a delay in valuation has been responsible for that delay”

    It should be indicated that at least two courts have concluded that they have no jurisdiction to conduct a valuation hearing absent an "expressed and valid purpose". In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13, 13 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Tx. 1990); In re Richardson, 97 B.R. 161 (W.D.N.Y. 1989). 11 U.S.C. § 506 provides rather vague but nevertheless supportable argument for the position that the court should take a flexible approach to the valuation of collateral in bankruptcy matters.

  10. In re Miller

    188 B.R. 302 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that conversion of non-exempt property to a homestead does not take away a debtor's homestead exemption because a homestead exemption is protected by the Florida Constitution

    It is well established law that it is the objecting party's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Debtor is not entitled to the exemption claimed. In re Ehnle, 124 B.R. 361 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1991); In re Barlock, 121 B.R. 13 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1990). Once the objecting party has made a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the Debtor to prove his entitlement to the exemption.