Carson Meadows, Incorporated v. Hotel Maurice Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Carson Meadows, Incorporated v. Hotel Maurice Corporation

397 F.2d 805, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6307

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1968

Docket21865

StatusPublished

This text of 397 F.2d 805 (Carson Meadows, Incorporated v. Hotel Maurice Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carson Meadows, Incorporated v. Hotel Maurice Corporation, 397 F.2d 805, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6307 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from a dismissal of a Chapter X proceeding in bankruptcy, the district court found the petition had not been filed in good faith and accordingly dismissed pursuant to Section 141 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 541.

At the argument it developed that after the dismissal and the termination of stay orders against foreclosures on real property, a large number of the improved properties belonging to appellant had been foreclosed upon, but that there remained other properties, some unimproved, upon which foreclosures had not been instituted or completed. The district court’s order of dismissal was proper and is affirmed.

In view of the changed conditions, the petitioner would be entitled to file a new petition under Chapter X. In order to save time and the preparing of new schedules, etc., our order of affirmance is stayed for thirty days after the date of this opinion, and leave granted to appellant, if it sees fit, to file within the thirty day period an amendment or supplement to its petition under Chapter X, setting forth what properties remain after foreclosure, the amount of the encumbrances against remaining parcels of real property, and the status as to each of the foreclosure proceedings.

If an answer is filed as provided in Section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 544, the court shall promptly set the matter for hearing and promptly decide whether or not the petition as amended or supplemented complies with the Act and has been filed in good faith, Section 141 of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 541, and whether “it is unreasonable to expect that a plan of reorganization can be effected,” Section 146(3) of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 546(3).

We do not indicate what decision the district court should make in the matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from a dismissal of a Chapter X proceeding in bankruptcy, the district court found the petition had not been filed in good faith and accordingly dismissed pursuant to Section 141 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 541.

At the argument it developed that after the dismissal and the termination of stay orders against foreclosures on real property, a large number of the improved properties belonging to appellant had been foreclosed upon, but that there remained other properties, some unimproved, upon which foreclosures had not been instituted or completed. The district court’s order of dismissal was proper and is affirmed.

In view of the changed conditions, the petitioner would be entitled to file a new petition under Chapter X. In order to save time and the preparing of new schedules, etc., our order of affirmance is stayed for thirty days after the date of this opinion, and leave granted to appellant, if it sees fit, to file within the thirty day period an amendment or supplement to its petition under Chapter X, setting forth what properties remain after foreclosure, the amount of the encumbrances against remaining parcels of real property, and the status as to each of the foreclosure proceedings.

If an answer is filed as provided in Section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 544, the court shall promptly set the matter for hearing and promptly decide whether or not the petition as amended or supplemented complies with the Act and has been filed in good faith, Section 141 of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 541, and whether “it is unreasonable to expect that a plan of reorganization can be effected,” Section 146(3) of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 546(3).

We do not indicate what decision the district court should make in the matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 F.2d 805, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carson-meadows-incorporated-v-hotel-maurice-corporation-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack