28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157 treats an objection to discharge as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Lister v. Gonzalez (In Re Gonzalez) · filed 1988-11-16(b)(2)(J)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats an objection to a debtor’s discharge as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Friedman v. Alfonso (In Re Alfonso) · filed 1988-12-20(b)(2)(J)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a debtor’s claimed pension plan exemption as a core proceeding.

Heitkamp v. Dyke (In Re Dyke) · filed 1989-04-21(b)(2)(B)

The proceeding which gave rise to the trustee’s motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats a proceeding to revoke a debtor’s discharge as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Bear Stearns & Co. v. Stein (In Re Stein) · filed 1989-07-20(b)(2)(J)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a creditor’s claim as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

In re Russell · filed 1989-10-19(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats an objection to discharge as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Perryman (In Re Perryman) · filed 1990-02-23(b)(2)(J)

This is a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J) and the Bankruptcy Court may enter final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a bankruptcy exemption as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

In re Williams · filed 1990-03-30(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) authorizes a bankruptcy court to hear and determine an objection to discharge as a core proceeding.

Wolfdiam P.V.B.A. v. Wainsztein (In re Wainsztein) · filed 1990-08-10(b)(2)(J)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes an objection to a claim a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Swift v. Bellucci (In Re Bellucci) · filed 1990-09-27(b)(2)(B)

It is settled that an objection to claim is a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats challenges to a debtor’s discharge as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Royal Bank of Pennsylvania v. Selig (In Re Selig) · filed 1992-01-13(b)(2)(J)

The first Count of the Complaint, challenging the Debtors’ discharge, is clearly a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J), the resolution of which is confined to a bankruptcy court and therefore clearly arises under title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) permits a bankruptcy court to decide whether a debtor is entitled to a discharge even when allegedly concealed property is outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Marine Midland Bank v. Portnoy (In Re Portnoy) · filed 1996-10-07(b)(2)(J)

Quite plainly, I have jurisdiction to determine whether a voluntary debtor is entitled to the bankruptcy discharge for which he has petitioned regardless of whether or not the property which he is said to have concealed is within my jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) classifies objections to discharge as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction, and § 157(b) does not make timeliness a prerequisite to considering them.

In Re Andrew J. Kontrick, Debtor-Appellant · filed 2002-08-27(b)(2)(J)

An “objection[ ] to discharge” is a “core proceeding[ ]” over which the bankruptcy court exercises jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J). Nowhere in the definition of core proceedings is the adjective “timely” used to define a core proceeding. Thus, there is nothing within § 157(b) to indicate that a bankruptcy court is precluded from considering untimely objections to discharge.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats objections to discharge as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Butler v. Liu (In Re Liu) · filed 2002-12-12(b)(2)(J)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2) (J).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) classifies objections to discharge as core bankruptcy proceedings and imposes no filing deadline.

Kontrick v. Ryan · filed 2004-01-14(b)(2)(J)

The provision conferring jurisdiction over objections to discharge, however, contains no timeliness condition. Section 157(b)(2)(J) instructs only that “objections to discharges” are “[c]ore proceedings” within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats an objection to a debtor’s discharge as a core proceeding.

McVay v. DiGesualdo (In re DiGesualdo) · filed 2011-06-30(b)(2)(J)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J), as the UST has objected to the Debtors’ discharge.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats an objection to discharge as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may issue a final decision.

Deangelis v. Von Kiel (In Re Von Kiel) · filed 2012-01-05(b)(2)(J)

This case constitutes an adversary proceeding objecting to Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), (3), and (4). This case is therefore a core proceeding and I have jurisdiction and the power to consider this matter and to issue a final decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats an objection to discharge as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Haupt v. Belonzi (In re Belonzi) · filed 2012-09-07(b)(2)(J)

This is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J), and the Court will enter final judgment in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a claim in a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding, permitting a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order under § 157(b)(1).

In re Polaroid Corp. · filed 2013-12-30(b)(2)(B)

It is a core proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), and hence it is subject to entry of a final order by a bankruptcy judge, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to a debtor’s claimed exemptions as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may make a final binding determination.

Res-Ga Gold, LLC v. Cherwenka (In re Cherwenka) · filed 2014-03-06(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), this Court has the power to make a final binding determination concerning a dispute which involves a challenge of a claim of exemption asserted by the Debtor.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a claim objection as a core proceeding.

Alsohaibi v. Arcapita Bank B.S.C.(c) (In re Arcapita Bank B.S.C.(c)) · filed 2014-04-29(b)(2)(B)

A claim objection is a core proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), and this objection is not “inextricably intertwined” with other litigation. Therefore, the bankruptcy court is the appropriate forum.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats objections to discharge as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

The Shack, LLC v. Hickman · filed 2020-04-17(b)(2)(J)

This matter seeking a determination of an objection to discharge is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J) over which this Court has authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to proofs of claim as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Grace Louise Dahlquist · filed 2020-04-27(b)(2)(B)

Further, it is not reasonable to argue that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to determine a proof of claim objection, which is a matter within the court’s core jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes an objection to a claim a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Texaz Plaza Restaurant, LLC · filed 2020-08-20(b)(2)(B)

An objection to a claim is a core proceeding which this Court may hear and determine as provided in 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2) (B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to claims as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Texaz Crossroads, LLC · filed 2020-08-20(b)(2)(B)

An objection to a claim is a core proceeding which this Court may hear and determine as provided in 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2) (B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to claims as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Texaz Table Restaurant of KS, LLC · filed 2020-08-20(b)(2)(B)

An objection to a claim is a core proceeding which this Court may hear and determine as provided in 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2) (B).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats an action objecting to a debtor’s discharge as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Kaler v. Persson · filed 2022-05-16(b)(2)(J)

This adversary action is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J). The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157 and authority to enter a final order in this matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a proof of claim filed against the debtor as a core proceeding.

Oklahoma Merge, LP · filed 2022-07-13(b)(2)(B)

As an objection to a proof of claim filed against the Debtor, it both falls within the list of core proceedings contained in Section 157(b) and is also a claim that “could only arise in the context of a bankruptcy case.”

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats claim objections as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may determine by final order.

Old Market Group Holdings Corp. · filed 2022-12-13(b)(2)(B)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), the claim objection is a core proceeding, which the Court may determine by final order.

An action to deny a debtor’s discharge is a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and decide.

Mendelsohn v. Kumar · filed 2023-06-26(b)(2)(J)

This is a core proceeding that the Court may hear and decide.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives bankruptcy courts authority to resolve exemption objections and enter final judgments on them.

In re Pugh · filed 2014-10-24(b)(2)(B)

The Court has jurisdiction to resolve objections to exemption claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). ... This Court has authority to enter a final judgment on Tire Warehouse’s exemption objection because this action resolves claims to property of the estate and is therefore central to the public bankruptcy scheme.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the determination of exemptions from property of the estate as a core proceeding.

FIRST BANK OF CATOOSA v. REID · filed 1985-03-12(b)(2)(B)

Here, the bankruptcy case was a "core proceeding" because it involved the determination of "exemptions from the property of the estate," defined as a "core proceeding" under Sec. 157(b)(2)(B) of the 1984 Act.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to claimed bankruptcy exemptions as a core proceeding.

In Re Anselmi · filed 1985-06-05(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to exemptions as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may finally determine.

In Re Schmitt · filed 1986-01-21(b)(2)(B)

This Court has jurisdiction over and the power to hear and finally determine all issues arising hereunder pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157, and the July 27, 1984, Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a claimed exemption as a core proceeding.

In Re Brooks · filed 1986-03-27(b)(2)(B)

An objection to the exempt status of property of the estate is a “core proceeding” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2) treats an objection to a debtor’s claimed exemption as a core proceeding.

Matter of Craddock · filed 1986-06-30(b)(2)

The above-styled Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is before the Court on the Trustee’s Objection to Debtors’ Amended Claim of Exemption. ... The Court finds this matter to constitute a “core” proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s request for immediate payment of a homestead exemption by a Chapter 7 trustee as a core proceeding.

Kaufman v. Balaber-Strauss (In Re Kaufman) · filed 1986-12-29(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

A trustee’s objection to exemptions is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

In Re Cypert · filed 1987-01-07(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The Court finds that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a dispute over a debtor’s claimed exemptions as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Sanders · filed 1987-01-29(b)(2)(B)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a claim arising from a debtor-in-possession’s postpetition contract to sell estate assets as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

Meininger v. Swasey (In Re Sarasota Casual, Inc.) · filed 1988-08-11(b)(2)(A)

The suit on a post-petition contract falls literally within the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats a dispute over a postpetition contract as a core proceeding when the contract is integral to implementing a confirmed reorganization plan.

In Re Standard Metals Corp. · filed 1988-09-13(b)(2)

Even though the dispute over the accounting information entails an interpretation of a contract, which traditionally is a state law non-core matter, because the dispute surrounding this Agreement affects the debtor’s ability to implement the provisions of its plan of reorganization and because the obligations of Sun-nyside under the Agreement are postpetition, this Court is convinced that this matter involves one of the few limited circumstances wherein a contract action can nonetheless be a core matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) includes labor disputes concerning administration of the debtor’s estate among core proceedings.

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · filed 1990-11-07(b)(2)(A)

Section 157(b)(2) of title 28 sets forth a non-exclusive list of matters that Congress has determined to be core proceedings. The relevant portion of the list for this action is “matter concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). At issue is whether “matters concerning the administration of the estate” includes labor disputes. ... On the precedent of the Elsinore case and recent Second Circuit holdings, this Court concludes that this case is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats a contempt proceeding arising from a core bankruptcy proceeding as a core proceeding.

In Re Monarch Capital Corp. · filed 1994-10-05(b)(2)

The Court aligns itself with those courts that have adopted the assertion that if the proceeding from which the contempt proceeding arose was "core" in nature, the contempt proceeding itself is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes an objection to a claimed exemption a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order or judgment.

In Re Webb · filed 1997-03-25(b)(2)(B)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), this is a core proceeding in which final orders or judgments may be entered by a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) makes proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may adjudicate.

Cohen v. Morgan Schiff & Co. (In Re Friedman's Inc.) · filed 2008-01-10(b)(2)(F)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) “proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences” is a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may adjudicate. Therefore this core proceeding could have been adjudicated in the prior proceeding but was not.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Moran Towing Corp. (In Re Bethlehem Steel Corp.) · filed 2008-07-15(b)(2)(F)

Section 157(b)(2)(F) clearly and unambiguously defines preferential transfer proceedings as core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) classifies the allowance or disallowance of exemptions from estate property as a core proceeding.

In re Peake · filed 2012-10-15(b)(2)(B)

The allowance or disallowance of exemptions from property of the estate is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), over which this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and § 1384(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats disputes over the settlement of claims against a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Carr v. New Century Trs Holdings, Inc. · filed 2013-11-07(b)(2)(B)

The settlement of these claims clearly constitutes a core proceeding, and the Bankruptcy Court’s resolution of any disputes over the settlement are also clearly core proceedings related to the underlying settlement.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes the allowance of exemptions from estate property a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In re Likins · filed 2014-02-12(b)(2)(B)

The allowance of exemptions from property of the estate is a core proceeding which this Court may hear and determine as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to claimed exemptions as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may finally decide.

In re Sinclair · filed 2017-02-14(b)(2)(B)

Congress has also expressly specified in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) that “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions from property of the estate _” are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) covers determinations concerning liens on estate property, not a debtor’s asserted lien against a third party.

Schreiber v. Friedman · filed 2025-06-08(b)(2)(K)

However, this clause has been interpreted by courts in both Texas and New York to refer to liens that encumber the property of the estate, rather than the debtor’s own liens. ... The Firm has cited no authority to support its assertion that this Section of the Plan or the statutory language of Section 157(b)(2)(K) was intended to apply here, where the Debtor is attempting to assert a lien against a third party.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats proceedings affecting the liquidation of an estate asset as core proceedings, including claims by and against an LLC whose sole membership interest belongs to the estate.

Jackson Family Dentistry, LLC v. Major Dental Partners, LLC · filed 2023-08-11(b)(2)(O)

Therefore, those claims and counterclaims are “proceedings affecting the liquidation of [an] asset[] of the estate”, which makes them “core” proceedings under §157(b)(2)(O).

Section 157(b)(2)(N) makes approval of estate property sales a core bankruptcy matter and encompasses interpretation of related sale orders.

Morris v. Puleo (In Re Performance Materials, Inc.) · filed 2004-05-17(b)(2)(N)

One of the core matters that falls within bankruptcy court jurisdiction is an order approving a sale of property of an estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N). It is clear that not only does the court have jurisdiction, but that the interpretation of orders of the court as they relate to the sale of property of an estate are within the “core” jurisdiction of this court.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) covers proceedings that arise from, concern, or affect orders approving the sale of property.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Icahn (In Re Trans World Airlines, Inc.) · filed 2002-03-19(b)(2)(N)

However, core proceedings under § 157(b)(2)(N) are those which arise from, concern, or have some impact on “orders approving the sale of property”.

Section 157(b)(2) gives bankruptcy courts authority to decide which assets belong to a debtor’s estate.

In Re Kassover SSN: 068-24-4219 · filed 2001-04-25(b)(2)

The Bankruptcy Code makes crystal clear that a bankruptcy court shall decide which assets comprise the Debtor’s estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to enforce a trust affecting the nature and extent of estate property as a core proceeding.

Sysco Food Services Chicago, Inc. v. Reservoir Dogs, Inc. (In re Reservoir Dogs, Inc.) · filed 2000-10-06(b)(2)(A)

Whether property of the debtor is subject to a trust affects the nature and extent of property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, and so a proceeding to enforce a trust is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a condemnation proceeding as core when it would use, sell, or liquidate property of the bankruptcy estate.

Maricopa County v. PMI-DVW Real Estate Holdings, L.L.P. (In Re PMI-DVW Real Estate Holdings, L.L.P.) · filed 1999-08-27(b)

Therefore, based on all of the foregoing, because the County is attempting through its state court proceedings to use, sell, or otherwise liquidate assets of the estate, the Court finds and concludes that this matter involves a core proceeding and that the Bankruptcy Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), may hear and determine this matter, and enter appropriate orders and judgments thereon.

Section 157(b)(2) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction to decide competing claims to property alleged to belong to the estate, even when ownership turns on state law.

All American Laundry Service v. Ascher (In Re Ascher) · filed 1991-05-24(b)(2)

Thus, this Court has core jurisdiction to resolve the state law issues in the Removed Case since such resolution will determine whether Debtor has an interest in property which, if such interest is found, will become property of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (K), (O).

Section 157(b)(2) treats matters concerning estate administration, sales of estate property, and liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings.

Hialeah Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services (In re King Memorial Hospital, Inc.) · filed 1984-10-03(b)(2)

This adversary proceeding is a Core Proceeding inasmuch as it involves matters concerning the administration of the Debt- or’s estate; the sale of property of the estate other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate; and, affects the liquidation of the assets of this estate and does not involve a personal injury tort or a wrongful death claim.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an action to recover damages from a defaulting purchaser at a debtor’s public sale of estate property as a core proceeding.

Governor's Island v. Eways (In Re Governor's Island) · filed 1984-12-28(b)(2)

In its August 17,1984 order, this court also determined that this adversary proceeding to recover damages from a defaulting purchaser of property of the estate, who purchased at a public sale held by a debtor-in-possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363, is a “core proceeding” under either 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (“matters concerning the administration of the estate”) or 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N) (“orders approving sale of property”). A debtor’s court-sanctioned sale of property of the estate is by no means peripheral to the bankruptcy case; it is an essential part of bankruptcy case administration.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) and (O) treats a dispute over damages from a default on a court-ordered sale of estate property as a core proceeding.

Matter of Mann · filed 1985-01-16(b)(2)(N) and (O)

The issues involved are resolved as questions of fact, rather than of law, as to the quantum of damages as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over a purchaser’s default after a court-confirmed bankruptcy sale as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may resolve without a separate suit.

Ledford v. Terrill (In re Mann) · filed 1985-01-16(b)(2)(N), (O)

The issues involved are resolved as questions of fact, rather than of law, as to the quantum of damages as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N) and (0). ... Hence, the enforcement of such liability is a function of the bankruptcy court and within its jurisdiction over sales of estate property; and, an independent suit is not necessary to resolve the issues upon default in compliance with court orders.

Section 157 treats a dispute over the debtor’s interest in property as a core proceeding appropriate for bankruptcy court resolution.

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Jacobs (In Re Jacobs) · filed 1985-04-17(b)

Because the debtor’s interest in property is subject to dispute, this matter is a core proceeding within 28 U.S.C. § 157 and appropriate for resolution by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a proceeding as core when it affects liquidation of estate assets, including by affecting an asset’s sale value.

Professional Sales Corp. v. United States (In Re Professional Sales Corp.) · filed 1985-04-26(b)(2)(O)

PSC’s motion to enjoin the EPA is a core proceeding, as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0): ... The present action will “[affect] the liquidation of the assets of the estate” in that the PSC property with the designation of interim status can presumably be sold for substantially more money than it could be sold for without the designation of interim status.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats proceedings to turn over property of the estate as core proceedings, even when state law affects the dispute.

Harry C. Partridge, Jr. & Sons, Inc. v. M & R Construction Corp. (In Re Harry C. Partridge, Jr. & Sons, Inc.) · filed 1985-05-07(b)(2)(E)

A proceeding to obtain an order “to turn over property of the estate” is defined expressly as a core proceeding by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). That the contract in question involves a matter of construction which is controlled by state law does not detract from the fact that the essence of this action implicates a turnover proceeding which is expressly defined as a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats a dispute over ownership of property claimed by a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Illinois Department of Transportation Ex Rel Illinois v. Madison County Economic Opportunity Commission (In Re Madison C · filed 1985-06-24

The Court finds that the matter concerning ownership of the two vans in question is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, as well as a matter arising in a case under Title 11.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings involving estate administration and property sales.

Stearns v. Woolard (In re Laughing-House) · filed 1985-08-02(b)(2)

These adversary proceedings are “core proceedings” (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (0)) which this bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Section 157 treats this adequate-protection dispute as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Levin v. Kedzie-Carrol Currency Exchange, Inc. (In Re Cash Currency Exchange, Inc.) · filed 1985-08-07

This cause constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to collect insurance proceeds as a core proceeding akin to turnover, even when the insurer disputes coverage.

Fisher v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In Re Pied Piper Casual, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-13(b)(2)(E)

Here, the Trustee’s cause of action is for collection of the proceeds of an insurance policy. The company defends with an argument that the coverage does not extend to the particular theft, and that no proof of loss statement as such has been filed. The proceeding, accordingly, appears to be a proceeding seeking an order to turn over property of the estate. Such a proceeding is denominated as a core proceeding in § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine proceedings to enforce bids at a bankruptcy sale as core proceedings.

In Re Laughinghouse · filed 1985-08-02(b)(2)(A), (N), and (O)

These adversary proceedings are "core proceedings" (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (O)) which this bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a debtor’s motion to assume subleases as a core proceeding even when deciding enforceability requires applying state law.

In Re Storage Technology Corp. · filed 1985-09-03(b)(2)(O)

Simply because resolution of this issue is controlled by state law does not remove the matter from the jurisdiction of this Court. I further find that this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding over a debtor’s prepetition asset sale agreement as a core proceeding.

Waldschmidt v. Metropolitan Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (In Re Preston) · filed 1985-09-04(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (M) and (0).

Section 157(b) treats a trustee’s motion for declaratory judgment and turnover of estate property as a core matter.

In Re Coats · filed 1985-09-04(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(E)

This is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (2)(A) and (E).

Section 157(b) treats a dispute over a vessel or its sale proceeds in the bankruptcy court’s possession and jurisdiction as a core proceeding.

Velikopoljski v. Florida National Bank (In Re Velikopoljski) · filed 1985-11-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (2) since the subject matter of the controversy, a United States documented vessel, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, were at all times material to these proceedings in the possession and jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 157(b), read with 11 U.S.C. § 105, supports a bankruptcy court’s authority over turnover orders after former § 1481 was repealed.

In Re Krisle · filed 1985-10-11(b)

While the 1984 Bankruptcy Act Amendments have stricken this provision, the power is within the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 105 when read together with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(N) makes a dispute concerning an order approving a sale of estate property a core proceeding.

In Re Gus Hormovitis & George Karahalios · filed 1985-12-20(b)(2)(N)

This matter is a core proceeding because it concerns “orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N).

Section 157 treats this trustee proceeding as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy judge may hear and determine and in which the judge may enter judgment.

Malone v. Celeron Oil & Gas Co. (In re Currie) · filed 1986-01-24(b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E); pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Judge for this district may hear and determine all core proceedings arising in a case under Title 11 referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to recover property of the estate as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Nanuet National Bank v. Photo Promotion Associates (In Re Photo Promotion Associates, Inc.) · filed 1986-06-17(b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) which this court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(M) makes matters involving the use or lease of property core proceedings.

Gray Line of Boston, Inc. v. Sheraton Boston Corp. (In Re Gray Line of Boston, Inc.) · filed 1986-06-25(b)(2)(M)

Further, the matter deals with the use or lease of property which is made a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(M).

A trustee’s action to recover property for the bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding under § 157 when it is closely tied to determining the estate, allowing the bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment.

Mann v. Kreiss (In Re Kreiss) · filed 1986-03-17(b)(2)

Thus, the nexus between the proceeding and the bankruptcy estate is sufficiently close to find that it is a “core” proceeding in which the bankruptcy judge may issue a final judgment and that, accordingly, there is no reason to grant the motion to abstain.

A motion for authority to use cash collateral is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

In Re Underbakke · filed 1986-05-09(b)(2)

The matter before the Court involves Debtors’ Motion for Authority to Use Cash Collateral. The Court, having reviewed the stipulated facts and having reviewed the arguments of counsel, now makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order pursuant to F.R.B.P. 7052. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding to assume or reject an executory contract or lease as a core proceeding, although it is not specifically listed in subsection (b)(2).

L.T. Ruth Coal Co. v. Big Sandy Coal & Coke Co. (In Re L.T. Ruth Coal Co.) · filed 1986-05-14(b)(2)

Because a proceeding to assume or reject an executory contract or lease is not specifically mentioned in 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), but nevertheless is within the concept of core proceedings, the constitutionality of subsection (b) in its entirety is at issue.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies orders to turn over estate property and motions concerning the automatic stay as core bankruptcy proceedings.

France v. France (In Re France) · filed 1986-05-28(b)(2)

Clearly, the proceedings involving the title to the motor vehicle at issue were “core proceedings”, and under those circumstances, the exclusive jurisdiction of the property at issue, “wherever located”, was with the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding over rent owed for a debtor’s postforeclosure use of land as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Hilburn · filed 1986-07-01(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)(B) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(M) treats provisional approval of a debtor’s continued use of trademarks as a core proceeding involving the use of property.

Vylene Enterprises, Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In Re Vylene Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1986-08-13(b)(2)(M)

It thus involves the use of property, which section 157(b)(2)(M) designates as a core proceeding: In denying a preliminary injunction herein, the Court is provisionally approving Vylene’s continued use of Naugles’ trademarks, and this proceeding thus falls within the literal language of section 157(b)(2)(M).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) permits an estate’s conversion claim to be treated as a core proceeding when a pre-petition creditor converts estate property after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Pester Refining Co. v. MAPCO Gas Products, Inc. (In Re Pester Refining Co.) · filed 1986-07-09(b)(2)(O)

Therefore, the court holds that a conversion claim may constitutionally be a core proceeding if the claim is brought by the estate against a pre-petition creditor who converted property of the estate after the bankruptcy petition had been filed.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a dispute over a note and mortgage when it affects the liquidation of bankruptcy assets.

Branding Iron Motel, Inc. v. Sandlian Equity, Inc. · filed 1986-08-04(b)(2)

In this case, the controversy involving the note and mortgage is inextricably tied to the bankruptcy proceeding because it affects the liquidation of assets, and comes within the ambit of "core proceedings” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 treats a request for payment of use and occupancy as an administrative expense as a core proceeding.

In Re Xonics, Inc. · filed 1986-08-07

This cause constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a conversion action seeking to recover estate property as a core proceeding because it serves substantially the same purpose as turnover.

National Equipment & Mold Corp. v. Metropolitan Bank of Lima (In Re National Equipment & Mold Corp.) · filed 1986-08-08(b)(2)(E)

Since an action under Section 542 is intended to accomplish substantially the same objective, it would not be inconsistent with the fundamental concern of Section 157(b)(2)(E) to characterize conversion actions as actions to recover property of the estate. ... Since such actions are specifically designated as core proceedings under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b) it must be concluded that the Trustee’s action for conversion is also a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding over a debtor's use of rents as cash collateral as a core proceeding.

In Re Fry Road Associates, Ltd. · filed 1986-09-09(b)

The jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 is clear; this is also quite obviously a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) treats the parties’ decision to litigate a lease default in bankruptcy court as giving rise to a core proceeding.

In Re Family Showtime Theatres, Inc. · filed 1986-11-25(b)(2)

The parties have elected to litigate the matter of default before this Court, rather than in the Civil Court of Kings County, giving rise to a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(D), (G), (O).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies matters concerning estate administration, liens, and use of property as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Hamilton Bank v. Diaconx Corp. (In Re Diaconx Corp.) · filed 1987-01-13(b)(2)(A), (K), and (M)

This matter is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (K), and (M).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters involving administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may finally decide.

In Re UNR Industries, Inc. · filed 1987-03-09(b)(2)(A)

The expansion of the Legal Representative’s duties, like his original appointment, is a matter involving the administration of this estate. As such, it is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and accordingly is a matter as to which this Court has final decision-making authority.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor-in-possession’s action to collect a debt from a post-petition sale of estate assets as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

In Re ARNOLD PRINT WORKS, INC., Debtor. ARNOLD PRINT WORKS, INC., Appellant, v. Joseph APKIN, Et Al., Appellees · filed 1987-03-30(b)(2)(A)

The action of a debtor-in-possession to collect a post-petition debt arising from the sale of the estate’s assets, unlike a suit to recover a pre-petition debt, falls within the literal wording of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), “matters concerning the administration of the estate,” because it involves a claim that arose out of the administrative activities of a debtor-in-possession.

Section 157 treats proceedings to recover estate property and determine the validity or priority of liens in that property as core proceedings.

Brake v. Tavormina (In re Beverly Manufacturing Corp.) · filed 1988-03-28(b)(2)(E), (b)(2)(K)

On appeal, Brake challenges the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court over this proceeding in light of Northern Pipeline Construction Co., Inc. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). Brake's argument is without merit. The adversary complaint in this case sought to turn over property of the debtor's estate and to determine the validity and priority of Brake's purported retaining lien in the debtor's property.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) gives the bankruptcy court authority over the disposition of telephone numbers that are property of the estate.

Directional International, Ltd. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (In Re Personal Computer Network, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-12(b)(2)(N)

This court holds that the telephone numbers purchased by Plaintiff in this proceeding were property of the estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541 and that this court has jurisdiction as to the disposition of those telephone numbers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) makes a motion for rent payable from the debtor’s estate a core proceeding when payment would affect estate administration, allowing the bankruptcy court to enter a final decision.

In re Modern Steel Treating Co. · filed 1988-07-06(b)(2)(A)

This Court’s determination of whether Mr. Graham is entitled to the rents will certainly affect the administration of the estate in that any funds distributed to Mr. Graham pursuant to an order granting his motion will deplete the funds available to operate the Debtor’s business and will deplete the funds available to other creditors. Accordingly, this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and this Court has the conferred authority to render a final decision on the motion.

Section 157(b)(2)(D), (N), and (O) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings concerning an asset sale and a related secured claim transfer.

In Re Apex Oil Co. · filed 1988-11-08(b)(2)(D), (N) and (O)

This is a “core proceeding” which the Court may hear and determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(D), (N) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats a trustee’s proposed sale of the estate’s interest in land contracts signed by the debtor as purchaser as a core proceeding.

Matter of Walton · filed 1988-12-27(b)(2)(N)

The trustee’s original Motions concerning the assumption of these land contracts and his corresponding intentions to sell the bankruptcy estate’s interest in this property are clearly an example of the core proceeding listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N) — orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate.

Section 157(b) gives a bankruptcy court authority to approve the sale of a debtor’s rights in telephone numbers it possessed when it filed for bankruptcy.

Directional International, Ltd. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (In Re Personal Computer Network, Inc.) · filed 1989-03-28(b)(2)(N)

Exercising that jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the sale of the phone numbers to D.I. The bankruptcy court had the power to enter such an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(N), and 11 U.S.C. § 363(b), (f).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding seeking turnover of escrowed property to the debtor’s estate as a core proceeding.

Cohen v. 222 Liberty Associates (In Re 222 Liberty Associates) · filed 1989-05-22(b)(2)(E)

Therefore, from the vantage point of the Debtor, this proceeding is core pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) applies to lien determinations only when the lien encumbers property of the bankruptcy estate; abandonment makes that provision inapplicable.

Israel v. Department of the Treasury (In Re Israel) · filed 1990-03-30(b)(2)(K)

It is well settled that § 157(b)(2)(K) applies only to liens encumbering property which is property of the estate. ... The trustee has abandoned the property, it is no longer property of the estate, and § 157(b)(2)(K) is inapplicable.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Union National Bank of Pittsburgh (In Re Pittsburgh Cut Flower Co.) · filed 1990-08-23(b)(2)(A)

In addition, this proceeding also involves matters pertaining to the administration of Debtor’s estate and therefore is core pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a trustee's dispute concerning the administration of estate property as a core proceeding.

Olympia & York Florida Equity Corp. v. Bank of New York (In re Holywell Corp.) · filed 1990-10-02(b)(2)(A)

Moreover, we agree with the court below that this is a "core proceeding" under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b), as it is a "matter concerning the administration of the estate." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a dispute over a third party’s obligations to the estate a core proceeding merely because the dispute could bring an asset into the estate.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Glen Ivy Management Co. (In Re Glen Ivy Resorts, Inc.) · filed 1994-08-15(b)(2)(A)

§ 157(b)(2)(A)’s reference to “matters affecting administration of the estate” cannot be interpreted to include disputes that will fix a non-debtor third party’s legal obligations to the estate when the dispute does not grow out of a direct adjustment of debt- or/creditor relationships.

Section 157(b)(2) treats postpetition state law claims against a bankruptcy trustee and the trustee’s agents as core proceedings when their conduct is inextricably intertwined with the sale of estate property.

Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris Pine Mills) · filed 1995-01-12(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Applying the above to the facts of this case, we conclude that the district court did not err by holding that Plaintiffs’ postpetition state law claims asserted against the bankruptcy trustee and his agents for conduct inextricably intertwined with the trustee’s sale of property belonging to the bankruptcy estate involved a core proceeding subject to federal jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats proceedings seeking turnover of bankruptcy estate property as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may decide.

Walsh v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare (In Re Kingsley) · filed 1995-04-17(b)(2)(E)

When it enacted 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), Congress unquestionably intended that questions pertaining to the turnover of property of the bankruptcy estate be heard and decided by a bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats orders confirming or compelling a bankruptcy sale as core proceedings.

Jarecki v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Fund · filed 1995-08-15(b)(2)(N)

Core proceedings include, among other things, "orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N). It appears undisputed in this case that both the bankruptcy court's May 27, 1993 order confirming public sale of the subject properly and its subsequent March 9, 1994 order compelling sale involve core proceedings. Thus, this Court applies the deferential standard of review set forth in Bankr.Rule 8013, Title 11, U.S.C.A.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats an action arising from relief from the automatic stay and a subsequent sale of estate property as a core proceeding.

In re Werren · filed 1995-08-22(b)(2)(O)

Appellants' post-petition action arises out of the bankruptcy court's grant of a motion for relief from the automatic stay and subsequent sale of the bankruptcy estate property. Thus, it is a core proceeding contemplated by Sec. 157(b)(2)(O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) limits core proceedings concerning estate administration to matters involving property of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re the Guild and Gallery Plus, Inc., Debtor. John B. Torkelsen v. Maggio · filed 1996-02-05(b)(2)(A)

The plain language of § 157(b)(2)(A) applies only to property of the bankrupt estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) permits a bankruptcy court to treat an action on a post-petition contract as core when its proceeds belong to the estate and affect distributions to creditors.

Ellenberg v. Griffin (In re Midland Mechanical Contractors, Inc.) · filed 1996-05-28(b)(2)(A) and (O)

Given the impact which its disposition will have upon the distribution to creditors in the Debtor’s bankruptcy ease, the Court accordingly finds the action before it to constitute a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(M) treats proceedings concerning the use of a franchise agreement that is property of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

In Re Vylene Enterprises, Inc., Debtor. Vylene Enterprises, Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. · filed 1996-09-12(b)(2)(M)

Nevertheless, § 157(b)(2)(M) specifically provides that “orders approving the use or lease of property, including the use of cash collateral,” are core proceedings. ... The franchise agreement and the rights conferred therein are clearly assets of the bankruptcy estate. ... Therefore, we hold that the bankruptcy court’s determination that the adversary proceedings were “core” proceedings was correct. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter final judgment on the matters before it, subject to appellate review in the district court.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats challenges to the propriety of sales of bankruptcy estate assets as core proceedings.

Allnutt v. Wilcoxson · filed 1997-01-13(b)(2)(A)

Challenges to the propriety of sales of assets of the bankruptcy estate are core bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (1994).

Section 157(b)(2)(M) treats orders approving the use or lease of property as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.

In re Charles George Milden and Susan Patricia Milden · filed 1997-04-16(b)(2)(M)

With respect to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(M) specifically provides that "orders approving the use or lease of property" are core proceedings over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats claims arising from contracts made during bankruptcy to liquidate estate property as core proceedings, even when the claims are pursued after plan confirmation.

American Freight System, Inc. v. Blymyer Engineers, Inc. (In Re American Freight System, Inc.) · filed 1999-07-09(b)(2)(A)

Because the Court is convinced that AFS’s claims against Blymyer are claims “arising in” the AFS bankruptcy and are “core” proceedings under § 157(b)(2)(A), Blymyer’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

Section 157 treats a request to turn over property pleaded as belonging to the estate as a core proceeding and permits the bankruptcy court to decide whether the property belongs to the estate.

In Re: David Silva · filed 1999-07-28(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(E)

Section 157(b)(2)(E) characterizes orders to turn over property of the estate as core matters, as does S 157(b)(2)(A) for matters concerning the administration of the estate. ... However, the Trustee pleaded with sufficient particularity that the corporateaccount was property of the Estate, and, accordingly, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to decide whether the account was in substance ownedby the Debtors.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over a trustee’s compensation for administering a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

In Re Citi-Toledo Partners II · filed 2000-04-11(b)(2)(A)

As such a determination clearly concerns the administration of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, this matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to turn over trust property available to a debtor’s general creditors as a core proceeding.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Moglia (In Re Outboard Marine Corp.) · filed 2002-05-10(b)(2)(E)

Upon OMC’s bankruptcy filing on December 22, 2000, therefore, the Trust Corpus was no longer available to the Beneficiaries because it was to be made available to satisfy the claims of OMC’s general creditors. On this basis alone, the bankruptcy court would have core jurisdiction under § 157(b)(2)(E).

A finding that an action is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) is not dispositive of whether the allegations against an individual party are core.

Satten v. Webb · filed 2002-06-14(b)(2)(A)

Similarly, the finding by the bankruptcy court that this was a core proceeding under 28 United States Code section 157(b)(2)(A), concerning the administration of the bankruptcy estate, is not dispositive when the allegations as to Satten are individually considered as outlined above.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats a dispute over the interpretation of bankruptcy sale documents as core when it implicates the court’s function of conducting and approving asset sales.

In Re Cedar Chemical Corp. · filed 2003-06-20(b)(2)(N)

The Court nevertheless has core jurisdiction, at least to the extent that it is called upon to interpret the Sale Documents: ... The dispute involves a question of bankruptcy law, and implicates the Court’s core function of conducting and approving asset sales. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N).

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and decide core proceedings, including disputes over the validity of a bankruptcy sale order.

In Re Colarusso · filed 2003-07-16(b)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), bankruptcy courts "may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title." At issue in this Adversary Proceeding was the validity of the Sale Approval Order. ... Therefore, the bankruptcy court had concurrent, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a dispute over the validity of its sale approval order as a proceeding arising under or in a title 11 case.

Ragosa v. Canzano · filed 2003-07-16(b)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), bankruptcy courts “may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title.” At issue in this Adversary Proceeding was the validity of the Sale Approval Order. ... Therefore, the bankruptcy court had concurrent, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding over alleged bankruptcy petition preparer violations as core when the violations may affect administration of the bankruptcy case.

Martini v. We the People Forms & Service Centers USA, Inc. (In Re Barcelo) · filed 2004-08-05(b)(2)(A)

Next, the Court must determine whether the proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Section 157 provides in part: “Core proceedings include, but are not limited to — matters concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). As the Court has already found, the Defendants’ alleged violations of Section 110 have an impact on the administration of the bankruptcy case itself, in that the violations have a potential effect on the rights and liabilities of the debtors serviced by WTP-USA and WTP-FH. Therefore, this is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a trustee’s proceeding to determine the estate’s interest in foreclosure sale proceeds as a core proceeding.

Krol v. North Shore Holdings, Ltd. (In Re Sorci) · filed 2004-09-30(b)(2)

Certainly, the Trustee’s complaint, which invokes 11 U.S.C. § 506 and 11 U.S.C. § 541 and seeks to determine the estate’s interest in certain proceeds from the judicial sale of property in a foreclosure proceeding, would be considered a core proceeding over which the Court has jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(M) does not provide core jurisdiction to approve a compromise after plan confirmation when no estate property remains.

In Re Mirant Corp. · filed 2006-08-09(b)(2)(M)

Because the Plan has been confirmed, there is no property of the estate. ... the court’s authority to decide the Motions cannot be so traced to the court's core jurisdiction to hear matters involving the use, sale, or lease of property under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(M).

Section 157(b) treats determining what property belongs to a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Sigmar v. Anderson · filed 2006-10-27(b)

After a debtor files a bankruptcy proceeding, the determination of what constitutes property of the estate is a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers disputes over a postpetition lease when they directly affect administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Van Witt v. Navin-Oller Ex Rel. the Estate of Navin (In Re Navin) · filed 2007-12-19(b)(2)(A)

Moreover, even if the Confirmation Order did not explicitly provide for the Bankruptcy Court’s consideration of Van Witt’s dispute, the nature of this dispute directly affects a core bankruptcy function, namely, the administration of Debtor’s estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to determine whether disputed funds are property of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Settlement Capital Corp. v. Allstate Life Insurance (In Re Jack) · filed 2008-07-10(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) insofar as it requires the Court to determine whether the remaining funds are property of Judy Jack’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a post-petition contract claim as a core proceeding when the alleged breach is inextricably intertwined with the sale of estate assets.

Harris v. Wittman · filed 2009-12-21(b)(2)(A)

Under Harris Pine Mills, therefore, Harris’s proceeding is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) because the breach of the Settlement Agreement was inextricably intertwined with the sale of estate assets' — -the literal administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (E) treat claims concerning estate property and its turnover as core proceedings when they arise from the rejection of an executory contract.

Point Blank Solutions, Inc. v. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (In Re Point Blank Solutions, Inc.) · filed 2011-05-20(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(E)

Properly understood in this way, Debt- or’s claims for declaratory relief and for turnover of estate assets are core proceedings because they are “matters concerning the administration of the estate” and “orders to turn over property of the estate,” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (E).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a motion to distribute funds held by a Chapter 13 trustee after dismissal as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Hufford · filed 2011-09-29(b)(2)(A)

As this matter concerns the prior administration of the bankruptcy estate, it qualifies as a core proceeding over which this Court has jurisdiction to enter final orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) make a claim against a court-retained professional concerning work performed for the bankruptcy estate a core proceeding.

McClelland v. Grubb & Ellis Valuation & Advisory Group (In re McClelland) · filed 2011-12-09(b)(2)(A) and (O)

The present adversary proceeding is a core proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 157(b)(2)(A) and (O), and the reasoning set forth in Southmark and the Memorandum Decision entered in this proceeding on October 26, 2007. The Bankruptcy Court has the power to enter final orders in this matter, at least up to the time the case becomes trial-ready.

Section 157(b)(2)(M) gives a bankruptcy court authority to approve a trustee’s use of the estate’s interest in stock.

Palladino v. South Coast Oil Corp. (In Re South Coast Oil Corp.) · filed 2014-03-31(b)(2)(M)

We note at the outset that the bankruptcy court possessed jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to authorize the trustee to use the estate’s interest in Angus stock. See § 157(b)(2)(M) (conferring jurisdiction to enter “orders approving the use or lease of property”).

Section 157(b) treats disputes over whether property belongs to the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Carrega v. Grubb & Ellis Co. (In re Grubb & Ellis Co.) · filed 2014-12-15(b)

Whether the disputed commissions are property of the Debtors’ estate plainly raises an issue within the bankruptcy court’s “core jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) does not make a challenge to a claimed lien a core proceeding when the debtor had no interest in the property that entered the bankruptcy estate.

Chai Misty Le v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Le) · filed 2015-09-18(b)(2)(K)

The conclusion from this is inescapable: no property interest of the Les in the real estate passed into the bankruptcy estate in BKY 13-32274; so any challenge to a claim of lien by Wells Fargo and any claim for damages stemming from the challenge could not be a core proceeding in BKY 13-32274 under the sole category asserted by the Les.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats orders approving the sale of property as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may decide.

In Re: B Whale Corporation · filed 2020-02-18(b)(2)(N)

The bankruptcy court’s orders approving the vessel sales constituted a core proceeding, over which the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction.

Section 157 treats a suit alleging intentional interference with a court-ordered sale of estate assets as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate, even when the parties are non-debtors.

Bethpage Federal Credit Union v. Town of Huntington · filed 2020-06-11(b)(2)(A)

Where a proceeding between non-debtors alleges damages resulting from a concerted effort to interfere with the administration of the estate pursuant to a court-ordered sale of estate assets, the proceeding is “core,” and the bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to dismiss concerning the debtor’s description of estate property, income, and obligations as a core proceeding involving administration of the estate.

Teter v. Baumgart · filed 2022-08-15(b)(2)(A)

First, the matter below concerned the administration of the estate. 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(2)(A). The § 707(b) motion to dismiss related to whether the Debtor accurately described property of the estate, income, and financial obligations.

Section 157 identifies estate administration and dischargeability determinations as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may adjudicate.

Brandler v. Brandler · filed 2023-07-18(b)(2)(A) and (I)

Section 157 allows a district court to “refer” all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter. This Court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) & (I) this proceeding involves primarily core matters as it concerns the administration of the estate and determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a bankruptcy court’s approval of assignments of estate assets as matters concerning administration of the estate.

Rindlesbach v. Jones (In Re Rindlesbach) · filed 2016-08-30(b)(2)(A)

Although “[b]ankruptcy courts are properly hesitant to authorize the sale or assignment of a trustee’s avoidance powers or causes of action to a single creditor,” In re Metro. Elec. Mfg. Co., 295 B.R. 7, 12 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted), the bankruptcy court undoubtedly has subject-matter jurisdiction to approve assignments of any asset of the bankruptcy estate, see id. (noting propriety of assigning avoidance powers in certain circumstances); 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over “matters concerning the administration of the estate”).

Section 157(b)(2) places issues concerning estate administration and liquidation of estate assets within a bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

Arnot v. Prodehl (In re Neel) · filed 2016-06-14(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The parties are agreed that this court has “related to” jurisdiction over the Adversaries under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), but as to issues of abandonment for purposes of § 554, trustee statute of limitations questions under § 546(a), and “good faith purchaser for value” defenses under § 550(b), I conclude that deciding those issues is within the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) [“matters concerning the administration of the estate”] and (b)(2)(0) [“other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate”].

Section 157(b)(2) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction over claims concerning the preparation of bankruptcy schedules and statements when the disclosures affect estate administration and debtor-creditor relationships.

Lucas v. Nickens (In Re Lucas) · filed 2004-07-12(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Although the alleged negligence occurred pre-petition, the claim invokes the court’s core jurisdiction because preparation of bankruptcy statements and schedules is integral to the administration of the estate under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), and the disclosures therein impact debtor-creditor relationships under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157 treats claims arising from a Chapter 7 trustee’s actions in carrying out trustee duties as core proceedings when those claims would not have arisen but for the trustee’s role.

Chambers v. Silliman (In Re Bryan) · filed 2004-03-25

No duty for Defendant to act would have arisen but for Defendant’s role as Chapter 7 Trustee in Mr. Bryan’s bankruptcy case. That nexus between Defendant’s role and duties as Chapter 7 Trustee and the resulting claims of Plaintiff against Defendant render this proceeding a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats claims against a bankruptcy trustee’s agent arising from the administration of the estate as core proceedings.

Stewart v. Rosenblum · filed 2001-05-15(b)(2)(A)

Stewart’s action clearly constitutes a core bankruptcy proceeding under Harris Pine Mills, as he seeks to hold RPI liable for conduct “inextricably intertwined” with the administration of Cho’s estate.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a claim against a debtor in possession’s agent that concerns administration of the estate, even after the debtor is dismissed from the claim.

Sizzler USA Restaurants, Inc. v. Belair & Evans LLP (In Re Sizzler Restaurants International, Inc.) · filed 2001-03-13(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Consequently, under the holdings of Harris Pine Mills and DeLorean Motor Co., the counter-claim constituted a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(A) and (0) at the time that it was filed and continued to constitute a core proceeding notwithstanding the dismissal of Sizzler.

Section 157 treats a motion to enforce the reversal of an order allowing an administrative expense as a core proceeding because it follows from a core proceeding.

Williams v. Citifinancial Mortg. · filed 2001-01-08(b)(2)(B)

It would also be considered a core proceeding since it follows directly from a core proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 503(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order establishing an alternate claims facility and managing a related channeling order and temporary injunction as core matters.

In Re National Gypsum Co. · filed 2000-10-30(b)(2)(O)

The establishment of the alternate facility and the management of the channeling order and corresponding temporary injunction present core matters over which this court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment or order.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a determination of whether an agreement is executory as a core proceeding concerning estate administration and adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

In Re Resource Technology Corp. · filed 2000-10-25(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The determination of whether an agreement is executory is a core proceeding — under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (as a matter concerning the administration of the estate), and under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) (as a proceeding adjusting the debtor-creditor relationship).

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings that directly affect the bankruptcy court’s allocation of estate assets among creditors as core proceedings.

United States Lines, Inc. v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n · filed 1999-11-01(b)(2)

Thus, the declaratory proceedings brought by the Trust in this case directly affect the bankruptcy court’s core administrative function of asset allocation among creditors, and for that reason they are core.

An involuntary petition under § 303 is a core proceeding concerning estate administration under § 157(b)(2)(A).

In Re Cates · filed 1986-05-08(b)(2)(A)

Since the substantive statutory law on involuntary petitions is codified in § 303 of this chapter, the instant action is a core proceeding for it “concerns the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats a motion to dismiss or convert a Chapter 13 case for ineligibility as a core matter.

In Re Lambert · filed 1984-10-22(b)(1)

The court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157, and pursuant thereto holds that this is a “core matter” as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and exemplified in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), -(B),-(J), and -(0).