By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction This series has focused on the four bankruptcy-related bills that were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), became effective February 19, 2020. It appears in its entirety in Appendix B to this...
In re Oparaji
Print This Article
Link to Post:
In re Oparaji, 2010 WL 5462456 (Bankr. S.D. Texas, December 29, 2010) (Isgur)
The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a creditor from asserting a proof of claim in a debtor’s second Chapter 13 case that is inconsistent from the claim it asserted in the debtor’s first Chapter 13 case.
Case Summary
Titus Oparaji filed his first bankruptcy petition in 2004. Wells Fargo filed a number of claims in the case (five in total), but after it filed the fourth claim in December 2008, the Court approved a modification of Oparaji’s . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Fraud Imputed to Partner – Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Critical Case Comment – The Plan Rules
2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases Part 9 More from the Supreme Court: MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC
Meet the New Trustee
Chapter 13 Trustee Duties, Powers, And Limitations – Part 7
From the Editor – Eligibility
Two Final Observations about the SBRA – Part IX
Tax Deductions Hidden in Chapter 13
Critical Case Comment–Should’a Returned the Car
Progeny of Law v. Siegel: Sixth and Ninth Circuits Say Right to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case is Absolute, Not Qualified by Section 105