TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Spartan Plastics v. Verco Industries (In re Verco Industries)

In Re VERCO INDUSTRIES, a California Corporation, Debtor. SPARTAN PLASTICS, a Partnership, Claimant-Appellant, v. VERCO INDUSTRIES, a California Corporation, Debtor-In-Possession, Debtor-Appellee

Spartan Plastics v. Verco Indus. (In re Verco Indus.), 20 B.R. 664 (9th Cir. BAP 1982)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · Bankruptcy Courts
Decided
March 8, 1982
Docket
Nos. BAP No. CC-81-1212-VGH, Bankruptcy No. SA-80-01923-PE
Judges
Volinn, George, Hughes
Citations
20 B.R. 6641982 Bankr. LEXIS 46469 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 161

Opinion — Volinn

OPINION VOLINN, Bankruptcy Judge:

The facts are not disputed. Verco Industries, the debtor-in-possession, leased a building owned by Spartan Plastics. Verco owes Spartan rent for the period between July 23 and September 15, 1980. The trial court found this to be an administrative expense allowable under 11 U.S.C. § 503 in the amount of $10,791.

1

Noting that “Spartan Plastics owes the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Estate of Verco Industries the sum of $37,110 plus interest and attorneys’ fees as a result of the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit” the trial court granted Verco a stay of payment of the administrative expense. This stay is to continue in effect until such time as the outstanding debt of Spartan Plastics is paid in full, or until Spartan Plastics obtains a reversal on appeal of the above-mentioned decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Spartan asserts that, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 503 and 507, it is entitled to *665 immediate payment of its administrative claim. The determination of when an administrative expense is to be paid is within the discretion of the trial court.

In re Standard Furniture Co., 3 B.R. 527 , 6 B.C.D. 270 , 2 C.B.C.2d 274 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.1980); See also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 503.01, at p. 503-3 (15th ed. 1981).

Presently, Yerco Industries holds a valid and enforceable judgment against Spartan Plastics in the amount of $37,110 while Vereo owes Spartan Plastics $10,791 as an administrative expense. The stay preserves the status quo pending Spartan Plastics’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Spartan Plastics has failed to show an abuse of discretion. The order staying payment of the administrative expense is affirmed.

Yerco asserts that the present appeal is frivolous and requestions attorneys’ fees and costs. We decline to award fees and costs in this case.

The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED and the appellee’s request for attorneys’ fees is hereby DENIED.

1

. In compliance with a prior court order, Verco paid Spartan $202 per day for rent from September 15, 1980 until it vacated the premises.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 23 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 11985: 21987: 31988: 21989: 21991: 11992: 11993: 41994: 11997: 12002: 12004: 12008: 12009: 12024: 119842026peak 1993 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Microwave Products of America, Inc.100 B.R. 379 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1989)
  2. In re American Resources Management Corp.51 B.R. 713 (Bankr. D. Utah 1985)
  3. Local 144 Hospital Welfare Fund v. Baptist Medical Center of New York, Inc. (In re Baptist Medical Center of New York, Inc.)52 B.R. 417 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)
  4. In re Highland Group, Inc.136 B.R. 475 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1992)
  5. In re Reams Broadcasting Corp.153 B.R. 520 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993)
  6. Muscarello v. Blackburn (In re Blackburn)415 B.R. 668 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009)

Most recent

  1. Guardian Elder Care at Johnstown, LLCNo. 24-70299 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2024)
  2. Muscarello v. Blackburn (In re Blackburn)415 B.R. 668 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009)
  3. In re Shihai392 B.R. 62 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)
  4. In re Chi-Chi's, Inc.305 B.R. 396 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004)
  5. In re HQ Global Holdings, Inc.282 B.R. 169 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002)
  6. In re Scott209 B.R. 777 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1997)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Standard Furniture Co., 3 B.R. 527 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1980) 68

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list