In re Rodio

10 Citing cases

  1. Graham v. Prizm Assocs.

    20 Civ. 461 (CS)(PED) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Id. (citing In re Rodio, 257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2001)). Therefore, the automatic stay does not extend to property of the corporation in cases where the corporation has not filed for bankruptcy,

  2. Manson v. Friedberg

    08 Civ. 3890 (RO) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 11, 2013)   Cited 28 times
    Granting a $10,000 damage award for plaintiff who suffered low self-esteem, lacked confidence in herself, and lacked physical manifestations of her emotional distress

    See, e.g., In re Rodio, 257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001) The fact that Defendant Friedberg holds an ownership interest in a subsidiary entity does not give him an ownership interest in assets owned by that entity.

  3. Beane v. Beane

    Civil No. 08-cv-236-JL, Opinion No. 2011 DNH 012 (D.N.H. Jan. 24, 2011)

    In fact, a number of courts have ruled that property owned by the debtor's limited liability company was not property of his bankruptcy estate. See, e.g., Inre Brittain, 435 B.R. 318, 322 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2010); Harder v. Premierwest Bank (In re Harder), 413 B.R. 827, 835 (Bankr. D. Or. 2009); In re HSM Kennewick, L.P., 347 B.R. 569, 571-72 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006); Assocs. Commercial Corp. v. Rodio (In re Rodio), 257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001). Alan provides no authority to the contrary.

  4. In re Hess

    618 B.R. 13 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Hence, the question of an exemption does not arise"); In re Ealy , 307 B.R. 653, 657 n.1 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2004) ("corporate assets are generally not property of an individual debtor's bankruptcy estate"); In re Rodio , 257 B.R. 699 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001) (property of LLC in which Debtor is a member is not property of Debtor's estate); Manson v. Friedberg , 2013 WL 2896971, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) (same); Inre Strak , 2018 WL 6566622, at *2 (Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2018) ; In re Dieffenbacher , 556 B.R. 79, 85 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016). The only asset in the estate directly related to the house is Debtor's interest as the tenant under the oral month-to-month lease.

  5. In re Strak

    Case No. 18-22185 (Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    In conclusion, the Debtor's 51% ownership interest in Parkway Property LLC is property of his bankruptcy estate, but the assets of the LLC are not. In re Rodio, 257 B.R. 699 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001) (property of LLC in which debtor is a member is not property of debtor's estate) Thus, the Ewing property is not property of the estate under ยง 541(a) and is not protected by the automatic stay. Spencer Savings Bank's foreclosure action against the Ewing property may proceed. Alternatively, the Debtor asks that the automatic stay be extended to Parkway Property LLC.

  6. In re Brines

    Case No. 14-40442 (Bankr. D. Kan. May. 28, 2015)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the codebtor stay under ยง 1301 did not apply to the corporation since the corporate business entity was not an individual and the debt was incurred for business purposes.

    See also Donarumo v. Furlong (In re Furlong), 660 F.3d 81, 89, 89 n.9 (1st Cir. 2011) (calling it "well-settled" that the automatic stay does not extend to the "assets of a corporation in which the debtor has an interest, even if the interest is 100% of the corporate stock" (internal citation omitted)). See In re Rodio, 257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001) (applying concept to an LLC); In re Calhoun, 312 B.R. 380, 384 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2004) (same; "The separate legal existence of a corporation is respected in bankruptcy. The automatic stay does not stay actions against separate entities associated with the debtor.").

  7. Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Chickasaw Properties, LLC (In re Burrow)

    505 B.R. 838 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013)   Cited 13 times

    , In re Brittain, 435 B.R. 318, 322 (Bankr.D.S.C.2010) (analyzing South Carolina statute); In re Aldape Telford Glazier, Inc., 410 B.R. 60, 64 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2009) (Idaho statute); Assocs. Commercial Corp. v. Rodio (In re Rodio), 257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr.D.Conn.2001) (Connecticut statute); see also Sheehan v. Warner (In re Warner), 480 B.R. 641, 653 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2012); In re HSM Kennewick, L.P., 347 B.R. 569, 572 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2006).

  8. In re Calhoun

    Bankruptcy No. 04-00859 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Jun. 24, 2004)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that a debtor's bankruptcy stay does not extend to a LLC simply because the debtor held ownership interest in that LLC

    However, the debtor's property interest in a corporation or an LLC is narrowly confined to the intangible rights represented by the stock certificate or other ownership documentation. In re People's Bankshares, Ltd. 68 B.R. 536, 539 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1986) (applying corporation principles); In re Rodio, 257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001) (property of an LLC is not property of the individual members). The separate legal existence of a corporation is respected in bankruptcy.

  9. In re Mulder

    307 B.R. 637 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004)   Cited 59 times
    Setting out the three elements of injury, willfulness, and malice

    Even if Mulder owned such an interest, only that interest would be property of the bankruptcy estate. In re Albright, 291 B.R. 538, 540 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2003), Property belonging to the limited liability company itself would not. Associated Commercial Corp. v. Rodio ( In re Rodio), 257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001); see also 805 ILCS 180/30-1 (a) (2002) ("A member is not a co-owner of, and has no transferable interest in, property of a limited liability company.") If the sale were voided as a fraudulent conveyance, then, the monies recovered would belong to North 26th Land, LLC, not to Mulder. The court lacks jurisdiction over Counts III, V and VII of the complaint.

  10. In re Ealy

    307 B.R. 653 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2004)   Cited 5 times

    In re Smith, 2002 WL 32129522 at *2. See also In re Rodio, 257 B.R. 699 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2001) (property of LLC in which Debtor is a member is not property of Debtor's estate) (court did not find sufficient equitable interest). With this explanation, the rest of the facts flow logically, and the testimony given at the hearing (which the Court finds credible) provides a reasonable explanation for why the child care center was titled in the name of an LLC even though Ealy was not operating her business as an LLC, and Creditor did not require that an LLC purchase the Property.