International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Airlift International, Inc. (In Re Airlift International, Inc.)

S.D. Florida

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Airlift International, Inc. (In Re Airlift International, Inc.)

16 B.R. 639, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2459

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.

DecidedDecember 4, 1981

Docket15-19717

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 B.R. 639 (International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Airlift International, Inc. (In Re Airlift International, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Airlift International, Inc. (In Re Airlift International, Inc.), 16 B.R. 639, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2459 (Fla. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This Matter came before the Court on the motion to dismiss of James Daniel Brock and William D. Seidle, the co-trustees of the estate of this Debtor. The Court heard the argument of counsel for the parties.

The three-count complaint in this action sought a determination of the non-dis-chargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (4) of certain obligations of the Debtor, a judgment for the amount of these obligations, and relief from the automatic stay. The co-trustees moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that 11 U.S.C. §§ 727 and 1141(d) render the concept of dis-chargeability inapplicable to corporate debtors and thus that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a judgment from damages or for relief from the automatic stay. The Court agrees with the co-trustees. See In re Kuempel Co., 14 B.R. 324, 7 B.C.D. 1206 (Bkrtcy S.D.Ohio 1981). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice to the Plaintiffs establishing a claim by proof of claim and with leave to file an amended complaint within twenty days of the date of this Order to determine the validity, priority, and extent of any interest they may claim in the property of the Debtor’s estate.

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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This Matter came before the Court on the motion to dismiss of James Daniel Brock and William D. Seidle, the co-trustees of the estate of this Debtor. The Court heard the argument of counsel for the parties.

The three-count complaint in this action sought a determination of the non-dis-chargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (4) of certain obligations of the Debtor, a judgment for the amount of these obligations, and relief from the automatic stay. The co-trustees moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that 11 U.S.C. §§ 727 and 1141(d) render the concept of dis-chargeability inapplicable to corporate debtors and thus that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a judgment from damages or for relief from the automatic stay. The Court agrees with the co-trustees. See In re Kuempel Co., 14 B.R. 324, 7 B.C.D. 1206 (Bkrtcy S.D.Ohio 1981). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice to the Plaintiffs establishing a claim by proof of claim and with leave to file an amended complaint within twenty days of the date of this Order to determine the validity, priority, and extent of any interest they may claim in the property of the Debtor’s estate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 B.R. 639, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-assn-of-machinists-aerospace-workers-v-airlift-flsb-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack