Legal Opinion

In Re Orzel

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana

Decided January 4, 2008No. 19-20372PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JUDGMENT SUSTAINING OBJECTION TO CLAIM

J. PHILIP KLINGEBERGER, Bankruptcy Judge.

On September 17, 2007, the debtors (“Orzel”), by counsel, filed an objection to Claim # 1 filed by creditor Urban & Burt (“Urban”). The objection asserts that the claim “is a divorce-related debt, but does not meet the criteria of support”, and thus that the claim does not meet the criteria for allowance as a priority claim and should be allowed as a general unsecured claim. Notice of the objection was properly provided to Urban by the debtors. On October 16, 2007, Urban filed a timely response to the objection.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Keith Alan Kline, Debtor. Ronald R. Holliday v. Keith Alan KlineCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
  2. In the Matter of Wade S. Seibert and Deanne M. Seibert, Debtors-Appellees, Appeal of Green County, State of WisconsinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
  3. Cooper v. Garcia (In Re Garcia)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · 1994
  4. Hartley v. Townsend (In Re Townsend)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · 1995

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · 2013
  2. McNeil v. DrazinDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
  3. Davis, Matthews & Quigley, P.C. v. ElhagUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API