In re Shallow

6 Citing cases

  1. Albracht v. Hamilton State Bank (In re Albracht)

    505 B.R. 347 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    See cf. In re Shallow, 393 B.R. 277, 287 (Bankr.D.Conn.2008) (“As a general matter ... federal law sets the outer boundaries....”). The Court cannot say that the inclusion of the terms, as absolute and without qualification, was intended for mere compliance with Section 408 of the IRC.

  2. Syncom Indus., Inc. v. Wood (In re Wood)

    488 B.R. 265 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2013)   Cited 13 times

    (5) the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the representation having been made....In re Shallow, 393 B.R. 277, 286 (Bankr.D.Conn.2008) (quoting AT & T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Williams (In re Williams), 214 B.R. 433, 435 (Bankr.D.Conn.1997)). “To be actionable, the debtor's conduct must involve moral turpitude or intentional wrong; mere negligence, poor business judgment or fraud implied in law ... is insufficient.”

  3. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Silva (In re Silva)

    CASE NO. 10-33586 (LMW) (Bankr. D. Conn. Sep. 28, 2012)

    Deady v. Hanson (In re Hanson), 432 B.R. 758, 772 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010), aff'd, 470 B.R. 808 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (citations omitted). The "debtor's conduct must involve moral turpitude or intentional wrong . . . ," Sattler v. Shallow (In re Shallow), 393 B.R. 277, 286 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2008) (Krechevsky, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted); WHEREAS, the court assumes (but does not decide) that FMC otherwise has made out a prima facie case of fraud here.

  4. TD Bank, N.A. v. Sherman (In re Sherman)

    CASE NO. 11-32821 (LMW) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jun. 12, 2012)

    State laws concerning the perfection of personal property (such as the Uniform Commercial Code or certificate of title laws) have no applicability to documented vessels. See Sattler v. Shallow (In re Shallow), 393 B.R. 277, 285 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2008) (Krechevsky, J.) ("[P]erfection of a security interest in a federally documented vessel is determined by federal, not state, law."). See also Maryland Nat'l Bank v. The Vessel Madam Chapel, 46 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Alberto, 823 F.2d 712, 715-16 (3rd Cir. 1987).

  5. In re Jacuinde

    Case No. 08-15509-B-7 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    "To be actionable, the debtor's conduct must involve moral turpitude or intentional wrong; mere negligence, poor business judgment or fraud implied in law (which may exist without imputation of bad faith or immorality) is insufficient." In re Shallow, 393 B.R. 277, 286 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2008) (citations omitted). In the case, McCain v. Fuselier (In re Fuselier), 211 B.R. 540 (Bankr.

  6. In re Biswas

    No. 07-10440-B-7 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2009)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding that homeowners' damages were the result of negligence, rather than willfulness, where contractor stipulated that he lacked the competence to complete the project, but homeowners failed to show contractor knew he was incompetent when he undertook the project

    "To be actionable, the debtor's conduct must involve moral turpitude or intentional wrong; mere negligence, poor business judgment or fraud implied in law (which may exist without imputation of bad faith or immorality) is insufficient." In re Shallow, 393 B.R. 277, 286 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2008) (citations omitted). Stipulations of facts submitted to the court establish the following elements: (1) Biswas represented that he had the ability to undertake the Narangs' project, (2) that representation was false, (3) the Narangs justifiably relied upon that representation, and (4) the Narangs suffered damages.