TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Reisor Co., Inc.

In Re REISOR COMPANY, INC.

In re Reisor Co., 46 B.R. 290 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Louisiana · Bankruptcy Courts
Decided
January 24, 1985
Docket
No. 17-80265
Judges
Leroy Smallenberger
Citations
46 B.R. 2901985 Bankr. LEXIS 6851

Opinion — Smallenberger

*291 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LeROY SMALLENBERGER, Bankruptcy Judge.

Shreveport Cigar and Tobacco Company, Inc., d/b/a National Bonded Money Orders, hereinafter referred to as Creditor, filed an Application for Order Modifying Automatic Stay, on October 17, 1984. The Creditor had previously filed a proof of claim, on October 26, 1983. On September 14, 1984, the Trustee in this matter, Gene Howard, filed a Notice of Objection to the claim of Shreveport Cigar & Tobacco Company, Inc. The Trustee’s Objection and the Creditor’s Application were set and scheduled for a hearing on November 5, 1984, at 9:30 a.m. At said hearing, this matter was taken under advisement to determine the merits of the Creditor’s Application for Order Modifying Automatic Stay. Said Creditor relies on its memorandum as support for its Application. The Trustee contends that his objection to the creditors claim should be heard first. The creditor has pointed out a test to use when determining whether or not the automatic stay should be modified in order to proceed in a different forum. That test as cited in In Re Bock Laundry Machine Company, 37 B.R. 564 (Bkrtcy., N.D. Ohio, 1984) is:

(1) whether there will be any substantial prejudice to the debtor.

(2) the relative hardships which will be suffered by the claimant and the debtor; and (3) the probability of the claimant’s success.

The creditor continues his argument by stating, “The factor of the costs incurred in defending the suit is not a proper basis for denying a modification of the Automatic stay.

In Re Terry, 12 B.R. 578 , (Bkrtcy., E.D. Wisconsin, 1981)” and “The burden imposed upon your applicant is a proper consideration for the Court in determining whether or not to modify the Automatic Stay.

In Re Westwood Broadcasting, Inc., 35 B.R. 47 , (Bkrtcy., D. of Hawaii, 1983).”

in reviewing the test as expoused by In Re Bock and Matter of McGraw, 18 B.R. 140 (Bkrtcy. W.D. Wisconsin, 1982), and also Matter of Holtkamp, 669 F.2d 505 , (7th Cir.1982), the creditor has made one mistake or ommission that is fatal to its Application. The test proposes three prongs that are to be satisfied in order to modify the automatic stay. The third prong requires a showing of a probability of prevailing on the merits of the case.

This Court is of the opinion that the creditor has not sufficiently set forth a cause of action which offers a chance of some recovery. Therefore, the Creditor’s Application for Order Modifying Automatic Stay should be dismissed without prejudice and the Trustee’s objection to Shreveport Cigar and Tobacco Company’s claim be reset for hearing in order to determine whether or not there lies a cause of action against the debtor herein, Reisor Company, Inc., accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Order Modifying Automatic Stay, filed by Shreveport Cigar and Tobacco Company, Inc., be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Trustee’s objection to the claim of Shreveport Cigar and Tobacco Company be reset for hearing at the soonest date possible.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1986: 11990: 11996: 12011: 119862026peak 1986 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Peterson v. Cundy (In re Peterson)116 B.R. 247 (D. Colo. 1990)
  2. Chizzali v. Gindi (In re Gindi)642 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. 2011)
  3. In re Compass Van & Storage Corp.61 B.R. 230 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986)
  4. Ain v. Myers (In re Ain)193 B.R. 41 (D. Colo. 1996)

Most recent

  1. Chizzali v. Gindi (In re Gindi)642 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. 2011)
  2. Ain v. Myers (In re Ain)193 B.R. 41 (D. Colo. 1996)
  3. Peterson v. Cundy (In re Peterson)116 B.R. 247 (D. Colo. 1990)
  4. In re Compass Van & Storage Corp.61 B.R. 230 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Holtkamp v. Littlefield, 669 F.2d 505 (7th Cir. 1982) 285
In re McGraw, 18 B.R. 140 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1982) 62
In re Bock Laundry MacHine Co., 37 B.R. 564 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984) 38
Terry v. Johnson (In re Terry), 12 B.R. 578 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1981) 26
In re Westwood Broad., Inc., 35 B.R. 47 (Bankr. D. Haw. 1983) 9

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