Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation
Attorneys' Fees in Bad Faith Bankruptcy Claim
Where a bankruptcy claim is filed in bad faith to avoid attorneys' fees in a matrimonial action, the claim may be dismissed. In Re Lombardo, Case No. 806-73127-478, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, June 29, 2007.
The debtor filed for Chapter 7 relief, listing eight creditors on her schedules. Seven of the creditors were credit card companies with a total debt of $8,409.63. The eighth creditor was the debtor's matrimonial attorney, whose claim was in the sum of $56,749.95 for legal fees associated with the debtor's litigious divorce. After a hearing, the bankruptcy court dismissed the debtor's claim, citing bad faith. It held that under 11 U.S.C. ' 707(a), although 'bad faith' is not an enumerated cause for dismissal, the Second Circuit has followed a course of dismissal where there is an absence of good faith after consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including: the debtor's manipulations, the absence of an attempt to pay creditors, the debtor's failure to make lifestyle changes, the resources of the debtor, and the inflation of expenses by the debtor. In this case, the court also considered that the creditor, as the debtor's matrimonial attorney, could have removed herself from the litigation when the debtor was unable to pay her attorneys' fees. The attorney-creditor, however, continued to stay on the case because the debtor claimed she did not have funds to retain another attorney.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.