Bank of Nebraska v. Rose (In re Rose)
- Summarized by Bruce Weiner , Rosenberg, Musso & Weiner
- 12 years 3 weeks ago
- Citation:
- 2012 WL 6621185
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision excepting the bank's debt from discharge finding that the Bankruptcy Court correctly used the reasonable reliance standard in deciding that the debt should not be discharged under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(B). In the Bankruptcy Court, the Debtor filed counterclaims under state law. On appeal, the debtor argued that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction under Stern v. Marshall to hear those counterclaims. The BAP held that because the debtor failed to interpose that objection in the bankruptcy court that even though the bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to hear the state law claims, the debtor consented to the jurisdiction of that court by failing to object to its jurisdiction. Further, the BAP held that the debtor lacked standing to bring those claims because they arose pre-petition and belonged to the chapter 7 trustee unless abandoned by him.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska
- Facts:
- Debtor failed to file a designation of items to be included on record on appeal so there are almost no facts in the decision other than the Debtor borrowed money from the bank, defaulted on the loan, and filed for bankruptcy relief. in the bankruptcy court, the bank filed a dischargeability proceeding under Section 523(a)(2)(B).
- Judge(s):
- Kressel, Schermer, Nail. Decision written by Judge Nail.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
