28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter judgment when the parties consent.

Catanzareti v. Pizzo (In Re Catanzareti) · filed 2009-03-06(c)(2)

Plaintiff has alleged, and Defendant has admitted, that this is a core proceeding. They are deemed to have consented to the bankruptcy court entering judgment subject to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a party to consent by implication to a bankruptcy judge entering final judgment in a related non-core proceeding.

Price v. America's Servicing Co. (In Re Price) · filed 2009-03-20(c)(2)

Based on ASC’s failure to challenge Plaintiffs’ assertion that its lawsuit is a core proceeding, the Court finds that ASC has by implication consented to have this Court enter a final judgment in this matter.

Section 157(c)(2) requires party consent before a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment, including summary judgment, in a related noncore proceeding.

Novak v. Sack Distributors Corp. (In Re Lathrop) · filed 2009-04-15(c)(2)

The Fourth and Fifth Counts of the Amended Complaint are not “core” proceedings but are “related to a case under title 11” which this Court may hear pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). As the parties have thus far not indicated whether they consent, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2), to this Court’s entry of final orders or judgment, the Court, at the present time, lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment, including summary judgment, thereon.

Withdrawal of consent to final bankruptcy court adjudication under § 157(c)(2) requires a motion and a showing of good cause.

Jacobs v. Kingsley Capital, Inc. (In Re Kingsley Capital, Inc.) · filed 2010-01-20(c)(2)

However, we do agree that withdrawal of § 157(c)(2) consent does require both a motion and a showing of good cause, neither of which was present here. We therefore conclude that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to recognize Hatch’s Notice of withdrawal of its consent.

Section 157(b) allows a bankruptcy court to treat a proceeding as core when the parties' conduct implies consent to that treatment.

Maroun v. New York Mortgage Co. (In Re Maroun) · filed 2010-02-11(b)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). It is important to note that the Plaintiff failed to set forth the jurisdictional statement in her complaint. Neither party raised the issue of jurisdiction nor requested prior to judgment that the proceeding be declared “non-core.” Consent to the treatment of this proceeding as “core” is implied from the actions of the parties.

Section 157(c)(2) allows implied consent to a bankruptcy court’s entry of final judgment in a non-core proceeding when a party fails to object to the court’s exercise of core jurisdiction.

Villegas v. Texas State Bank · filed 2010-02-18(c)(2)

Without deciding whether the adversary proceeding was a core proceeding, we hold that Villegas impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court’s entry of final judgment by failing to object to the court’s exercise of core jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(2) treats a party’s request for dispositive relief as consent to the bankruptcy court’s entry of a dispositive order on that request.

Maple v. Colonial Orthopaedics, Inc. (In Re Maple) · filed 2010-07-21(c)(2)

As Defendant has requested that the Court grant it the relief presented by its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant is deemed to have consented to entry of a dispositive order in that regard.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a related proceeding when the parties consent.

In Re Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC · filed 2011-06-22(c)(2)

That issue need not be addressed here, as the parties consented to entry of final judgments relating to the Counterclaims. ... Such consent, being expressly provided for by statute, lays to rest any question of whether a final judgment may be entered here. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when the parties consent.

In Re Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC · filed 2011-08-25(c)(2)

A Bankruptcy Judge may enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding that is otherwise related to a bankruptcy case if the parties consent. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent.

Brook v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Peacock) · filed 2011-09-02(c)(2)

As a non-core proceeding, the Court may hear the present dispute, but it cannot enter a final judgment without the parties’ consent. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy court to hear non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case, but absent all parties’ consent it may only propose findings and conclusions for final judgment by an Article III judge.

Medical Educational & Health Services, Inc. v. Independent Municipality of Mayaguez (In Re Medical Educational & Health · filed 2011-09-02(c)(1), (c)(2)

Applying the case law and statutes to the facts of the case before us, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs auxiliary claims are non-core proceedings “related to” a case under title 11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and (c)(2), this Court may only submit proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Any final judgment must be entered by an Article III judge, absent consent of all parties.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

Pro-Pac, Inc. v. Chapes (In Re Pro-Pac, Inc.) · filed 2011-09-27(c)(2)

Since WOW and Chapes clearly consented to this Court’s entry of a final judgment on Pro-Pac’s Complaint, even if this action is a non-core proceeding, this Court has both the subject matter jurisdiction and authority to proceed.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent without violating Article III.

Adams National Bank v. GB Herndon & Associates, Inc. (In Re GB Herndon & Associates, Inc.) · filed 2011-10-04(c)(2)

For all of these reasons, I conclude that even after Stem v. Marshall, the bankruptcy court may adjudicate a proceeding, without running afoul of Article III, when there has been consent by the parties.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders and judgments in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent; admissions in responsive pleadings can establish that consent.

Mercury Companies, Inc. v. FNF Security Acquisition, Inc. · filed 2011-10-31(c)(2)

Also, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) specifically provides that, with the parties’ consent, a bankruptcy judge can even issue orders and judgment in a non-core proceeding. ... This also constituted consent to the authority of the Bankruptcy Court to enter orders and judgment in the Adversary Proceeding.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to finally adjudicate claims with the parties’ consent without deciding whether the proceeding is core.

Henderson Ex Rel. Estate of Evans v. Community Bank (In Re Evans) · filed 2011-12-15(c)(2)

The Court need not address the core/non-core distinction because the parties clearly have consented to the final adjudication by this Court of all of their claims.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to finally adjudicate a proceeding when the parties consent.

Henderson v. Community Bank (In Re Evans) · filed 2011-12-15(c)(2)

The Court need not address the coreAion-core distinction because the parties clearly have consented to the final adjudication by this Court of all of their claims.

Section 157(c) allows a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders in a referred proceeding when the parties consent.

Willson v. Vanderlick (In re Central Louisiana Grain Cooperative, Inc.) · filed 2012-01-31(c)

In light of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), the court concludes that this stipulation is sufficient to allow the court to enter final orders under Stem.

Section 157(c) permits parties to consent to a bankruptcy court’s entry of final judgment on related proceedings.

Tolliver v. Bank of America (In Re Tolliver) · filed 2012-02-02(c)

The Court finds no prohibition or limitation in Stem regarding the parties’ ability to consent to the entry of final orders by the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a non-core proceeding with all parties’ consent, and consent also permits final adjudication of statutorily defined core matters.

Ardi Ltd. Partnership v. Buncher Co. (In Re River Entertainment Co.) · filed 2012-03-30(c)(2)

Following a need created by Stem, it also appears that an extension of the consent provision contained in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) to core matters is both logical and appropriate. ... As a result, this Court concludes that consent applies to provide bankruptcy courts with the ability to finally adjudicate both statutorily defined core and non-core matters.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a noncore proceeding when the parties consent; consent may be implied from their agreement and lack of objection.

In Re Yarnell's Ice Cream Co., Inc. · filed 2012-04-19(c)(2)

Therefore, pursuant to the agreed order and the lack of any objection, the Court finds the parties consented to treatment of this proceeding as a core matter and the Court may enter a final judgment in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to try a non-core proceeding and enter final judgment when all parties expressly consent.

Allstate Insurance v. Harris (In re Harris) · filed 2012-04-19(c)(2)

As noted in the Allard v. Coenen case, however, such “related to” claims are non-core. But all of the parties in this adversary proceeding (ie., the Harrises; NCS; Collis; and Allstate) have expressly consented to the bankruptcy court conducting any trial in this adversary proceeding and entering a final judgment on the Harrises’ third-party claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) lets a bankruptcy court hear and determine a related-to proceeding with all parties' consent.

Empire State Building Co. v. New York Skyline, Inc. (In Re New York Skyline, Inc.) · filed 2012-05-11(c)(2)

The Court has the authority to enter a final judgment on these claims because the parties have expressly consented. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) (authorizing the bankruptcy court to hear and determine a “related to” proceeding with the consent of all parties).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on non-core claims when the parties consent.

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Rolsafe International, LLC (In re Rolsafe International, LLC) · filed 2012-08-22(c)(2)

Nevertheless, the Court concludes that it may still enter final judgment on each claim under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) because the parties have consented to this Court hearing and determining each cause of action alleged in the Bank’s Amended Complaint.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a non-core proceeding when all parties consent; consent may be tacit.

Segarra-Miranda v. Perez-Padro · filed 2012-09-13(c)(2)

Settled law unequivocally empowers bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in non-core proceedings when all parties consent. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2). ... By failing to object when given the opportunity to do so, the Trustee tacitly consented to the entry of a final judgment by the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to hear and finally determine a related proceeding with the parties’ consent, whether the matter is core or non-core.

Crawford v. Zambrano (In re Zambrano Corp.) · filed 2012-09-17(c)(2)

Such consent is sufficient to allow this Court to hear and finally determine the instant matters, regardless of whether they are statutorily defined as “core” or “non-core,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 allows a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment with both parties’ consent regardless of whether the matter is core or non-core.

In re Whatever, LLC · filed 2012-09-20(c)(2)

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A)(B), (K) and (O). During the June 18, 2012 evidentiary hearing, both parties, through their counsel, consented to this Court entering final judgment on the instant matter. Such consent is sufficient to allow this Court to hear and finally determine the matter, regardless of whether it is statutorily defined as “core” or “non-core”.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a related non-core proceeding with the parties' consent, which may be implied.

Bank of Nebraska v. Rose · filed 2012-12-20(c)(2)

A bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment in a non-core, related proceeding, if the parties consent. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2); Abramowitz v. Palmer, 999 F.2d 1274, 1279 (8th Cir. 1993). Such consent may be implied.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment with the parties’ consent, which may be implied when a party litigates without objecting to the court’s authority.

Bank of Nebraska v. Rose (In re Rose) · filed 2012-12-20(c)(2)

A bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment in a non-core, related proceeding, if the parties consent. ... Such consent may be implied. ... We conclude Debtor impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court’s entering a final judgment on the state law counterclaims.

Section 157(c)(2) permits final adjudication of non-core matters with party consent, which a properly served defendant may imply by failing to respond to the complaint.

Executive Sounding Board Associates Inc. ex rel. Oldco M Distribution Trust v. Advanced Machine & Engineering Co. (In re · filed 2012-12-20(c)(2)

However, as discussed below, parties may consent to a bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of non-core matters pursuant to section 157(c)(2). ... Where a summons and complaint have been properly served and the defendant has failed to respond, the Court concludes that the defendant’s actions, or lack thereof, (1) serve as an admission of the material allegations of the complaint except as to the amount of damages, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(6), and (2) constitute implied consent to the entry of a default judgment by a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

Camacho v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (In re Camacho) · filed 2013-03-18(c)(2)

All defendants expressly consented orally on the record in open court that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine the matter in its entirety. ... The plaintiff likewise consented orally on the record, and also consented by conduct in two respects: by filing this lawsuit alleging that it is a core proceeding and by not subsequently questioning this court’s authority over the action. ... Accordingly, this court has the power to “hear and determine” the adversary proceeding in its entirety, regardless of core or non-core status.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

Cohen v. Sikirica · filed 2013-02-28(c)(2)

The Bankruptcy Court found, as a matter of fact, that the parties consented to entry of final judgment by the Bankruptcy Court. ... Appellants do not challenge this finding of fact and therefore the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enter final judgment, even if the proceedings are non-core.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a related, noncore proceeding when both parties consent.

Maifeld v. West Coast Life Insurance (In re Maifeld) · filed 2013-07-15(c)(2)

It is therefore subject to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), under which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment in the matter only with the consent of both parties. Maifeld so assented in his complaint; and in a later pleading, West Coast has now done the same with respect to Count I. Accordingly, the court now proceeds to decide the matter pursuant to its authority under § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a related non-core proceeding when a party implicitly consents through its conduct, even if it denied consent in its answer.

Corliss Moore & Associates, LLC v. Credit Control Services, Inc. · filed 2013-09-04(c)(2)

Here, though CCS denied that it consented to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, CCS entered into a post-petition contract with Debtors, and after the adversary proceeding commenced, CCS sought discovery through the bankruptcy court and filed a motion to dismiss in this case. CCS was actively involved in the bankruptcy court proceedings and waited over nine months to move for withdrawal of reference. Through such conduct CCS implicitly consented to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy court may therefore enter a final order in this non-core proceeding.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment with the parties’ consent, which may be inferred from a defendant’s failure to object and request for judgment.

Detention Management, LLC v. UMB Bank, NA (In re Municipal Corrections, LLC) · filed 2013-09-30(c)(2)

The Court construes the defendant’s failure to address these matters in its answer or otherwise and its request that the Court enter judgment in its favor as consent to the Court’s entry of final judgment on the issues. Thus, the Court also has authority to determine this adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) based on the consent of all parties.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders and judgments in non-core proceedings with all parties’ consent.

Logan v. McLean (In re McLean) · filed 2013-10-08(c)(2)

To the extent that any of the pleaded causes of action are non-core, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2), the consent of all parties permits the entry of final orders and judgments by the bankruptcy judge.

Section 157 classifies fraudulent transfer proceedings as core proceedings, and a bankruptcy court may enter a final order when the defendants impliedly consent to its authority.

Riley v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Duplication Management, Inc.) · filed 2013-11-04(b)(2)(H)

The Defendants have impliedly consented to the authority of this Court to determine the fraudulent transfer counts, although they have not filed proofs of claim, by failing to raise an issue of the Court’s authority during this proceeding.

When parties do not consent to final adjudication by a bankruptcy judge, § 157(c)(1) treats the judge’s findings on a non-core claim as recommendations for district court review.

Ariston Properties, LLC v. Messer ex rel. FKF Trust (In re FKF 3, LLC) · filed 2013-11-06(c)(1)

In light of the “strict” test for a finding of consent, the Court finds that Appellants did not impliedly consent to the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of the default judgments at issue. Accordingly, the Default Judgment Order is vacated, and Judge Morris’s findings in the Memorandum Decision are treated as recommendations under § 157(c)(1) and reviewed de novo by this Court.

Section 157(c)(2) requires both parties’ consent for a bankruptcy court to enter a final order.

Colvin v. Amegy Mortgage Co. · filed 2014-03-28(c)(2)

...and that statute clearly requires that both parties consent for a bankruptcy court to enter a final order, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2). Here, Amegy’s Motion to Dismiss clearly contested the bankruptcy court’s adjudicative authority and did not consent to a final adjudication by that court.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent; a plan provision retaining jurisdiction to “hear and determine” the proceeding does not, by itself, establish that consent.

New York Skyline, Inc. v. Empire State Building Trust Co. (In re New York Skyline, Inc.) · filed 2014-06-16(c)(2)

A general statement that jurisdiction is retained to “hear and determine” an adversary proceeding does not, without more, indicate such consent because section 157(b)(1) uses the same terms to refer to a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter final judgments on core claims — and a bankruptcy judge can exercise that authority without consent.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies fraudulent transfer claims as core proceedings, but that classification does not allow a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment against a non-creditor in a private rights action.

McCord v. Jonsilver Auto Sales, LLC (In re USA United Fleet, Inc.) · filed 2014-06-27(b)(2)(H)

Although it is a fraudulent transfer claim, which Congress has defined as a “core proceeding” within the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), the Supreme Court’s decisions in ... make it clear that classification as a core proceed ing in the statute does not affect a non-creditor’s right in a private rights action to have fraudulent transfer eases against him finally determined by an Article III judge.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a non-core, related proceeding when the parties consent.

Flyboy Aviation Properties, LLC v. Franck (In re Flyboy Aviation Properties, LLC) · filed 2015-01-16(c)(2)

The bankruptcy court may hear non-core matters, but absent the consent of the parties, does not have the authority to enter a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b), (c)(1) and (c)(2).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment with the parties’ consent, whether the proceeding is core or non-core.

In re BG Petroleum, LLC · filed 2015-02-13(c)(2)

Both BG Petroleum, LLC and the Simmons Group, through their counsel, also consented to this Court's entering final judgment as to the Motions. Such consent is sufficient to allow this Court to hear and finally determine the matter, regardless of whether it is statutorily defined as ‘core” or “non-core” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and enter final judgments in related proceedings when all parties consent.

United Tort v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC (In re Otero County Hospital Ass'n) · filed 2015-03-18(c)(2)

Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) the Court may hear and enter final judgments in each adversary proceeding.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders and judgments when the parties consent.

Abreu v. Jamaica Avenue Funding LLC (In re Abreu) · filed 2015-03-27(c)(2)

Pursuant to a joint statement, the parties have stipulated to the Court entering final orders and judgments in this proceeding. ... This Court has jurisdiction to enter final orders and judgments in this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) requires every party’s unambiguous consent before a bankruptcy court may finally adjudicate a non-core claim.

Empire State Building Co. v. New York Skyline, Inc. · filed 2015-04-21(c)(2)

A bankruptcy court may not finally adjudicate a non-core claim unless the parties have unambiguously consented to such non-Article III adjudication.

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a non-core claim on implied consent, provided the consent is knowing and voluntary.

Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif · filed 2015-05-26(c)(2)

The implied consent standard articulated in Roell supplies the appropriate rule for adjudications by bankruptcy courts under § 157. ... It bears emphasizing, however, that a litigant’s consent—whether express or implied—must still be knowing and voluntary.

Section 157(c)(2) requires all parties’ consent before a bankruptcy court may hear and determine a non-core claim, but that consent need not be express.

Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif · filed 2015-05-26(c)(2)

Nor does the relevant statute, 28 U. S. C. §157, mandate express consent; it states only that a bankruptcy court must obtain “the consent”—consent simpliciter—“of all parties to the proceeding” before hearing and determining a non-core claim. §157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a non-core proceeding when all parties consent, including through implied consent.

Sears v. Rhett Sears · filed 2017-08-09(c)(2)

However, the parties may knowingly and voluntarily consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. §157(c)(2); Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. V. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1939 (2015). Neither the Constitution nor the relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. §157, requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express. Id. It “states only that a bankruptcy court must obtain the consent of all parties to the proceeding before hearing and determining a non-core claim.” Id. Implied consent is also sufficient to grant the bankruptcy court authority to enter a final judgment in a “related to” proceeding. Abramowitz v. Palmer, 999 F.2d 1274, 1280 (8th Cir. 1993). Failure to object to the bankruptcy court’s authority constitutes consent to that jurisdiction. Id. The plaintiffs have consented to the authority of the bankruptcy court because the plaintiffs have waived the challenge by failing to object.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and finally determine a non-core proceeding when all parties knowingly and voluntarily consent, including by implication.

Sears v. Sears (In re AFY, Inc.) · filed 2017-08-09(c)(2)

However, the parties may knowingly and voluntarily consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2); ... Neither the Constitution nor the relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 157, requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express. ... It “states only that a bankruptcy court must obtain the consent of all parties to the proceeding before hearing and determining a non-core claim.” ... Implied consent is also sufficient to grant the bankruptcy court authority to enter a final judgment in a “related to” proceeding. ... Failure to object to the bankruptcy court’s authority constitutes consent to that jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a non-core proceeding when all parties consent.

Cramer v. Palm Avenue Partners, LLC (In re Palm Avenue Partners, LLC) · filed 2017-08-15(c)(2)

So all parties are deemed to have consented to this Court's authority to enter a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 does not require consent to a bankruptcy court's adjudication to be express.

O2Cool, LLC v. TSA Stores, Inc. Bank of America, N.A. (In re TSAWD Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2017-09-20

The Court may enter a final order when parties have either expressly or impliedly consented. Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1947-48, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express. Nor does the relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 157, mandate express consent ....” (internal quotations omitted)).

Section 157(e) requires all parties to consent before a bankruptcy judge may conduct a jury trial.

Piggly Wiggly v. Mansel · filed 2020-04-29(e)

In accordance with section 157(e), all parties to the litigation must consent to a jury trial in the bankruptcy court, a requirement that solves pre-existing constitutional problems. ... As to the fourth requirement, the parties do not consent to a jury trial in bankruptcy court, so this Court will preside over all pre-trial issues. Any remaining issues to be decided by a jury will then be presided over by the District Court.

Section 157(a) authorizes a district court to refer Title 11 cases and related proceedings to the bankruptcy court.

Johnson v. Peoples Bank, National Association · filed 2022-01-14(a)

Pursuant to these standards, this District’s Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.13 relies on 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) to provide that “all cases under Title 11, and all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11, are referred to the Bankruptcy Court for disposition.” ... The Court accordingly REFERS this action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for further proceedings and orders it REMOVED from the docket.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a party to consent to the bankruptcy court’s entry of a final order in a non-core proceeding; requesting immediate entry of an order can establish that consent.

In re: Jeannie Quinteros · filed 2022-09-01(c)(2)

The district court concluded, however, that appellant forfeited any argument that the proceeding was non-core because her complaint expressly stated that the proceeding was a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157; that appellant also consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by requesting immediate entry of an order in her prayer for relief; and that, in any event, its ruling would be the same if it treated the bankruptcy court’s order as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant has not shown that these conclusions were erroneous.

Consent under § 157(c)(2) is knowing and voluntary when a litigant expressly agrees after being told consent is needed and may be refused.

In Re: Silverio Arenas, Jr. v. Inslee · filed 2023-05-15(c)(2)

First, we reject Arenas’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. Arenas knowingly and voluntarily consented to pursuing his claims in the bankruptcy court because he expressly agreed to do so after he “‘was made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it.’” Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 685, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1948, 191 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

A party that does not object to a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter final orders waives that objection.

Pinktoe Liquidation Trust v. Dellal · filed 2024-03-13

Accordingly, I now conclude that ... Defendant has waived any objection to entry of final orders in this adversary proceeding by the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c) does not require party consent for a bankruptcy court to enter an order dismissing one claim while other claims remain pending.

Parrott · filed 2026-04-10(c)

Because “an order dismissing only one claim in a multi-claim adversary proceeding does not amount to a final order,” Kiviti v. Bhatt, 80 F.4th 520, 530 (4th Cir. 2023), this Order dismissing the second cause of action but denying the balance of the Motion is not one requiring consent of the parties and raises no jurisdictional impediments.

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts core authority to enter final orders concerning proposed reorganization plans, including disclosure statement approval and solicitation of votes.

Energy Harbor LLC and Pleasants Corp. · filed 2019-08-29

While courts from other circuits analyze similar issues regarding nonconsensual third-party releases through the prism of the court’s jurisdiction and what does or does not constitute “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, the Court finds that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Dow Corning presumes, if not holds, that the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction to enter final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 with respect to matters concerning plans of reorganization, their confirmation, and the process of seeking such confirmation, including the approval of a disclosure statement and the solicitation of approvals of a proposed plan, and that bankruptcy courts have subject matter jurisdiction to consider those matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

A proceeding to interpret a confirmed reorganization plan is a core matter under § 157(b)(3).

Mackey v. M C Investments · filed 2000-10-10(b)(3)

To the extent that he challenges the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the proceeding is one “arising under title 11", by contending that the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the case was a “core” matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), we reject that contention. Mackey’s action against Appellee claimed breach of the notice provisions of the confirmed plan of reorganization. Whether the plan required such notice requires interpretation of the plan, which is a matter “arising under title 11".

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding.

In Re Mitchell · filed 1989-11-07(b)(2)(L)

This matter concerning the confirmation of a chapter 13 plan is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

A proceeding to determine the scope and effect of disclosure and plan confirmation orders is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(L).

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Richards (In Re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire) · filed 1992-10-19(b)(2)(L)

In this context it is my judgment that this adversary proceeding clearly arises under Title 11 and arises in a case under Title 11, United States Code, and therefore comes within the subject matter jurisdiction provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and moreover constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2) treats confirmation of a bankruptcy plan as a core proceeding.

In Re Puckett · filed 1996-02-14(b)(2)

“Confirmation of plans” is a proceeding expressly included in the “core proceedings” designated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a postconfirmation tax refund claim as a core proceeding when the underlying tax liability predates confirmation and the refund will fund the reorganization plan.

United States v. Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. (In Re Gordon Sel-Way, Inc.) · filed 1999-08-31(b)(2)

In addition, the parties agree that the proceeds of any refund action were to be used to consummate Sel-Way’s Plan of reorganization, whether the “estate” technically ceased on the date of confirmation or not. Under these circumstances, Sel-Way’s refund claim constituted a “core proceeding” for which the bankruptcy court properly exercised jurisdiction pursuant to § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine an adjustment of the chapter 11 plan exclusivity periods as a core plan confirmation matter.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (In Re Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hos · filed 2002-08-02(b)(2)(L)

Adjustment of exclusivity under § 1121(d) is a "core proceeding" plan confirmation matter that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157’s core proceeding category covers plan confirmation disputes that require resolving substantive bankruptcy law issues.

Huse v. Huse-Sporsem, A.S. (In Re Birting Fisheries, Inc.) · filed 2003-10-03(b)(2)

The same rationale for exclusive jurisdiction applies to core plan confirmation issues. ... In this case, interpretation of the confirmed Plan required more than the application of simple contract law. It involved an issue as to whether a nondebt- or’s rights, as allegedly established in the Plan, prevented his fellow shareholders from suing him derivatively. Therefore, the bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its Plan and Confirmation Order in order to determine whether the state court’s res judicata determination was correct.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings concerning discharges and plan confirmation as core proceedings, including a proceeding to enforce a confirmed plan.

In Re: Midstate Mtg · filed 2004-08-05(b)(2)(I), (J), (L)

Here, the bankruptcy court considered arguments regarding Plan terms involving releases and discharges, as well as the confirmation itself, making this a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), (J), (L).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats an objection to a reorganization plan as a core proceeding.

In re Batista-Sanechez · filed 2014-01-31(b)(2)(L)

It concerns an objection to a plan of reorganization, and is therefore a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) classifies confirmation of a plan as a core proceeding.

In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC · filed 2017-10-03(b)(2)(L)

“Confirmations of plans” is an enumerated core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes plan confirmation a core proceeding within a bankruptcy court’s statutory authority, subject to Article III limits.

Millennium Lab Holdings II LLC v. · filed 2019-12-19(b)(2)(L)

The Bankruptcy Court indisputably had “core” statutory authority to confirm the plan. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) (“Core proceedings include, but are not limited to …[,] confirmations of plans[.]”).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding only when its outcome could affect the bankruptcy estate; a defendant’s family relationship to the debtor is insufficient.

Miller v. Miller Jr. · filed 2026-04-16(c)(1)

Instead, the Court must apply the more traditional “related to” analysis and consider whether the claims against Haley Miller could conceivably impact the handling or administration of the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(c) gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over non-core claims related to a bankruptcy case, including claims whose outcome will likely affect the estate.

Jackson v. ING Bank, FSB (In re Jackson) · filed 2016-02-01(c)

Ms. Jackson’s remaining claims are non-core and the court has jurisdiction because they are “related to” her bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). This includes her FDCPA claim, because in her pending chapter 13 case in which a plan has yet to be confirmed, the outcome of this claim will likely effect Ms. Jackson’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 157 permits referral to a bankruptcy judge of a civil proceeding related to a Title 11 case, but referred jurisdiction does not reach claims whose outcome would have no effect on the bankruptcy estate or the debtor's discharge.

In Re MacNichol · filed 1999-09-01(a)

The outer limits of the district court's referral to its bankruptcy judges require that the civil proceeding be "related to" a case under Title 11. ... The result of those judgments would have no effect on this bankruptcy estate or on the debtor's discharge. ... In sum, this bankruptcy judge does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the bankruptcy and related action jurisdiction referred to the bankruptcy judges by the district court to determine the merits of this complaint against the Defaulting Defendants.

Section 157(a)’s “related to” authority is not established merely by the existence of funds in the bankruptcy estate.

In re Management Control Systems, Inc. · filed 1999-07-21(a)

Therefore, this Court’s jurisdiction, if anywhere, must be found in the “related to” jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... First of all, this Court does not agree that merely the existence of funds is sufficient to satisfy the “related to” issue.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a noncore proceeding only if it is related to a bankruptcy case; a connection too tenuous to affect the estate is insufficient.

Cunningham v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. · filed 1999-06-29(c)(1)

Bankruptcy courts obtain jurisdiction over non-core proceedings if the proceeding is a matter “related to” a case under Title 11. ... Any effect on the bankruptcy, if at all, is too tenuous to create “related to” jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) covers a proceeding related to a bankruptcy only if its resolution affects the estate’s property or its allocation among creditors.

The Home Insurance Company v. Cooper & Cooper, Ltd. · filed 1989-11-13(c)(1)

A controversy is not “related” to the bankruptcy within the meaning of § 157(c) unless its resolution “affects the amount of property available for distribution or the allocation of property among creditors”.

Section 157(c)(1) limits related-to bankruptcy proceedings to disputes whose resolution affects estate property or its distribution among creditors; a third-party indemnity dispute outside that limit must be dismissed.

Barber v. Riverside International Trucks, Inc. (In Re Pearson Industries, Inc.) · filed 1992-07-31(c)(1)

The outermost confines of this Court’s jurisdiction are those disputes which are “related to” the bankruptcy. 28 U.S.C. Section 157(c)(1). As defined by the Seventh Circuit, a dispute is only “related to” the bankruptcy if its resolution “affects the amount of property available for distribution or the allocation of property among the creditors.” ... That is true here regarding the third-party complaint filed by Riverside. It must be dismissed.

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy court’s authority under an order of reference to core proceedings and matters related to a bankruptcy case.

Wachsmuth Ex Rel. Gussen v. Cohen (In Re Wachsmuth Ex Rel. Gussen) · filed 2001-08-21

In turn, this Court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 157 which, by the general order of reference, grants this Court the limited jurisdiction to consider the jurisdiction granted to the District Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). It is clear that the lawsuit pending before this Court is neither core nor a related matter.

Section 157 does not give a bankruptcy court jurisdiction over a dispute between creditors that neither arises from its sale order nor has another connection supporting bankruptcy jurisdiction.

In Re Eneco, Inc. · filed 2010-03-02

On appeal, Maximillian argues the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute because: 1) the Contempt Motion arises in a case under title 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N); 2) the Contempt Motion is related to a case under title 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); 3) the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of its Sale Order; and 4) Congressional intent regarding jurisdiction is "to allow [bankruptcy courts] to deal efficiently and expeditiously with all matters connected with the bankruptcy estate." [50] ... Having considered the parties' arguments, we conclude that in order to resolve this appeal we must answer two questions. One, does the dispute between Catalyst and Maximillian arise out of the bankruptcy court's Sale Order? And two, if not, is there any other basis to support the bankruptcy court's exercise of jurisdiction over the dispute? We answer both questions in the negative. Therefore, based on the following, we affirm the bankruptcy court's order denying the Contempt Motion.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding when its outcome could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

Bounds v. Craft · filed 2010-10-25(a)

Bankruptcy judges may only exercise the authority conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and 28 U.S.C. § 1334. ... To determine if the matter is a “non-core proceeding” over which the bankruptcy court may exercise jurisdiction, the test is whether “the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” ... Applying the aforementioned test, the bankruptcy court correctly concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the claims challenging the garnishment asserted by appellant. The alleged claims could have no impact on the administration of the debtor’s estate.

Section 157(c)(1) does not give a bankruptcy court related-to jurisdiction to order payment of ERISA plan administration expenses from non-estate plan assets when the order cannot affect the bankruptcy estate.

United States Department of Labor v. Kirschenbaum · filed 2014-03-31(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court lacked non-core “related to” jurisdiction to order that the fees and expenses of the RPC Plan Administrator and his professionals be paid using assets from the RPC Plan.

Section 157(a) permits bankruptcy courts to hear proceedings related to a Chapter 11 case when the proceeding could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

Coen v. Stutz · filed 2015-06-11(a)

Each district court may provide the bankruptcy court in that district with subject matter jurisdiction over civil proceedings that are “related to” a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). In order for the bankruptcy court to exercise this jurisdiction over a dispute, however, some nexus between the civil proceeding and the title 11 case must exist. ... As such, Coen’s suit against Stutz falls within the bankruptcy court’s extremely broad “related to” jurisdiction.

Section 157 does not authorize a bankruptcy court to decide an exemption request concerning property unrelated to the bankruptcy estate when the ruling would have no effect on the estate.

Booker Wade, Jr. v. Stevens · filed 2016-12-21(b)(1), (c)(1)

The bankruptcy court properly denied Wade’s request for an order declaring that his exemptions protected property unrelated to the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief because its ruling would not impact the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(a)’s related-to jurisdiction requires a nexus between the proceeding and the bankruptcy case; a proceeding that cannot conceivably affect that case’s estate falls outside it.

Murray · filed 2020-09-04(a)

The “related to” language in § 1334(b) and § 157(a), as well as the “arising under” and “arising in” language, gives Bankruptcy Courts broad, but not limitless jurisdiction. ... In other words, the outcome of the claims alleged in Murray’s Adversary Complaint would have no conceivable effect on his 2019 case, which means that the Bankruptcy Court never had jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear noncore claims related to a bankruptcy case when their outcome could affect the estate.

Swink v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2021-10-12(c)(1)

A bankruptcy court “may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11,” but, absent the consent of the parties, may only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... The Plaintiff’s Non-Bankruptcy Claims could impact her bankruptcy estate if the Plaintiff ultimately prevails and funds are recovered. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that “related to” jurisdiction exists and declines to dismiss the Non-Bankruptcy Claims on that asserted basis.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens; seeking relief by motion instead of an adversary proceeding does not remove that jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. AMH Roman Two NC, LLC · filed 2017-06-12(b)(2)(K)

Similarly here, PNC’s decision to seek relief through a motion rather than through a separate adversary proceeding did not divest the bankruptcy court of subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) authorizes bankruptcy courts to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens, including state tax liens, despite the Tax Injunction Act.

Clark v. Field (In re Clark) · filed 2015-08-19(b)(2)(K)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) empowers the bankruptcy court to make “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.... ” These bankruptcy-specific provisions override the general provisions of the Tax Injunction Act.

A lien-priority dispute is not a core proceeding when the property has returned to the debtor and the outcome cannot affect distributions from the estate.

Bibler v. SN Servicing Corp. (In Re Bibler) · filed 2004-04-21(b)(3)

We further find that this is not a core proceeding. Although the priority of a lien is at issue, the determination of this question will have little, if any effect on the bankruptcy estate. The property at issue has reverted back to the Debtor. The priority argument involves two creditors. Whatever the outcome, there will be no greater or lesser amount of money in the estate to increase or decrease distribution to the unsecured creditors.

A dispute over the extent of a claimed interest in estate technology falls within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction under § 157(b)(2)(E).

In Re Storm Technology, Inc. · filed 2001-03-27(b)(2)(E)

As a result, this dispute comes within the purview of the Court’s core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over the extent and priority of a security interest as a matter for the bankruptcy court.

Mather v. Cellxion, L.L.C. (In Re Mobile International Co.) · filed 2001-01-24(b)(2)

Clearly, Defendants’ counterclaim regarding the trailers invokes equitable jurisdiction by seeking the extent and priority of their security interest in the trailers, an exclusive function of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding to determine the validity or extent of an equitable lien as a core proceeding.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Carpenter (In Re Carpenter) · filed 2000-01-18(b)(2)(K)

Pursuant to Section 157(b)(2)(K), a proceeding to determine the validity, extent, or priority of a lien is a core proceeding. The current proceeding is a core proceeding because Wal-Mart, in asking the court to determine whether it has a equitable lien, has commenced a proceeding to determine the validity and extent of the lien.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats actions to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens on bankruptcy estate property as core proceedings.

In Re McADAMS, INC. · filed 1995-11-28(b)(2)(K)

An action to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens asserted against the property of a bankrupt estate is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 157(b)(1) and 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to determine lien validity in an adversary proceeding to liens on property of the estate.

Karnes v. F.C. Morris & Sons, Inc. (In re Morris) · filed 1992-11-24(b)(2)(K)

The bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to determine validity of liens in an adversary proceeding is limited to liens on property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats disputes over the priority of a creditor’s lien as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Glen Eagle Square, Inc. v. Meehan-Weinmann, Inc. (In Re Glen Eagle Square, Inc.) · filed 1991-09-05(b)(2)(K)

Counts I and VI relate to the priority of MW’s lien, and hence are core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a suit determining the validity, extent, or priority of liens on estate property as a core proceeding, even when the suit also seeks damages for fraud and negligence arising from the same transaction.

Citibank, N.A. v. Park-Kenilworth Industries, Inc. · filed 1989-11-14(b)(2)(K)

In its negligence and fraud counts, Citibank asks for approximately $50 million in damages rather than for a return of the stock. Nonetheless, the prayers for relief in these counts, along with the request for a transfer of the stock, are all based upon the same transaction — Citibank’s loan to Park-Kenilworth, secured by a transfer of $50 million of Park-Kenilworth stock. ... Citibank’s suit is a proceeding to determine the “validity, extent, or priority” of the various liens on the stock. As such it is a core proceeding, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding to determine the extent of a lien as a core bankruptcy matter.

Wolinsky v. Vermont Federal Bank, FSB (In re Vermont Knitting Co.) · filed 1990-02-27(b)(2)(K)

It is a 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) core matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) permits federal courts to determine the validity of a lien asserted against a debtor’s estate and to apply federal law.

New Bank of New England, N.A. v. Tak Communications, Inc. (In Re Tak Communications. Inc.) · filed 1992-04-09(b)(2)(K)

Federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a lien asserted against the estate of a debtor, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), and to apply federal law.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Spartan Mills v. Bank of America Illi · filed 1997-05-06(b)(2)(K)

The "determination[ ] of the validity, extent, or priority of liens" is at the heart of this bankruptcy case and statutorily within the core of the bankruptcy court's "related to" jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a core proceeding concerning lien priority.

In Re Dat Hospitality, LLC · filed 2003-01-16(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding which this bankruptcy judge may hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding to determine lien priority as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Hotel Builders of Ohio, Inc. v. D.A.T. Hospitality (In re D.A.T. Hospitality) · filed 2003-01-16(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding which this bankruptcy judge may hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Armstrong v. Nationwide Mortgage Plan/Trust (In Re Armstrong) · filed 2003-01-24(b)(2)(K)

Because the Complaint seeks to avoid a secured interest in the Debtor’s property, it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K). That subparagraph includes among core proceedings "determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.”

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine proceedings concerning liens claimed on estate property and whether property belongs to the estate.

In re Silver · filed 2003-04-07(b)(2)

The Court finds that the relief requested in the complaint is primarily an adjudication of the liens claimed on estate property by Defendant and an adjudication of whether certain property is property of the estate. In consequence, the Court finds that it may hear and determine the matters herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (K) and perhaps (E) and (0)((E) and (0) in the sense that Plaintiffs seek a determination that certain property is property of the estate).

Section 157 gives the bankruptcy court core jurisdiction to determine the validity, priority, and extent of a lien.

Olde Florida Investments, Ltd. v. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District (In Re Olde Florida Investments, Lt · filed 2003-06-06(b)(2)(E)

It should be also pointed out that in the same Order, this Court also held, as an alternative basis for jurisdiction, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), this Court had “core” jurisdiction to determine the validity, priority and extent of a lien.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding to determine the validity of a lien on estate property as a core proceeding.

Martin v. CitiFinancial, Inc. (In Re Martin) · filed 2007-11-06(b)(2)(K)

Therefore, I conclude that determining the validity of CitiFinancial’s lien over estate property is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(K) and this conclusion is not violative of any constitutional concerns.

A quiet-title adversary proceeding remains core under § 157 after the disputed property is abandoned by the estate.

In Re Gunter · filed 2008-04-22(b)(2)(E)

In its order of June 28, 2007, the court determined that the Ocean Isle house was property of the estate and that the removed action to quiet title was a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) (determination of the validity, extent or priority of liens). The adversary proceeding to quiet title is still a core proceeding even after abandonment.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a dispute over lien priority as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

International Tobacco Partners, Ltd. v. Ohio (In re International Tobacco Partners, Ltd.) · filed 2011-11-09(b)(2)(K)

Further, this matter is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(K). At its heart, this dispute involves a contest between the priority of Ohio’s attachment lien and Debtor’s interest under the June 7 Agreement.

An adversary proceeding to determine the validity, extent, or priority of a lien is a core proceeding.

Huntington National Bank v. Bruinsma (In re Kentwood Pharmacy, L.L.C.) · filed 2012-07-17(b)(2)(K)

This adversary proceeding is a statutory core proceeding because the plaintiff seeks to determine the validity, extent, or priority of a lien. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a lien priority dispute as a core proceeding.

Resource Funding, Inc. v. Pacific Continental Bank (In re Washington Coast I, L.L.C.) · filed 2012-12-18(b)(2)(K)

A hen priority dispute is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core bankruptcy matters.

Hernandez v. TCF Banking & Savings (In re Hernandez) · filed 2013-05-10(b)(2)(k)

This is a proceeding to determine the validity, extent, or priority of a lien and therefore a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(k).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a dispute over lien priority as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Farmers Cooperative Co. v. Ernst & Young Inc. (In re Petition of Big Sky Farms Inc.) · filed 2014-04-18(b)(2)(K)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies proceedings that determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Henderson v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Simmons) · filed 2014-04-24(b)(2)(K)

Applying the Moore factors to the case at bar, the Court finds that mandatory abstention is not required because the proceeding before the Court is core under § 157(b)(2). Subsection (2)(K) of § 157(b) states that “core proceedings include, ... (K) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.”

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity, priority, or extent of liens as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In re Pederson · filed 2017-01-10(b)(2)(K)

Determination of the validity, priority or extent of liens also is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations of the validity of liens on estate property as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Hardy v. Ross (In re Hardy) · filed 2018-09-11(b)(2)(K)

Whether ACC had a valid lien squarely fits within the categories of core proceedings delineated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity, extent, and priority of liens as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Pixius Communications LLC - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-06-11(b)(2)(K)

That invokes this Court’s core jurisdiction to determine the validity, extent, and priority of WVL’s liens under 28 USC § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a dispute over the validity of a lien as a core proceeding.

Hollie v. The Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2020-10-28(b)(2)(K)

The pending dispute before this Court is a core ... proceeding pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(K) because it concerns the validity of Defendants’ lien on Plaintiff’s property.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims to determine whether a lien on estate property has been fully satisfied as core proceedings, even when pleaded as breach of contract or promissory estoppel.

Sweet v. Duggan · filed 2021-09-20(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(K)

Regarding the Amended Complaint, the following subsections of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) apply to the Trustee’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel counts which ultimately seek a determination that a lien on property of the bankruptcy estate has been fully satisfied: ... These subsections support that the Amended Complaint is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration, claim allowance, and the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings.

Malone v. IOU Central, Inc · filed 2021-09-30(b)(2)

For these reasons, and based on Plaintiff’s complaint, the court determines that the claims asserted are core under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) as follows: (A) matters concerning the administration of the estate; (B) allowance and disallowance of claims against the estate; (K) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens; and (O) other proceedings affecting the liquidation of assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor . . . relationship.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats disputes over the priority of liens on a debtor’s property as core proceedings, even when state law governs the merits.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. Williams · filed 2022-08-02(b)(2)(K)

Thus, the unambiguous statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) and the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of this code provision place this matter squarely within the definition of “core proceeding.”

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine lien priority as core bankruptcy proceedings.

GACP Finance Co., LLC v. Keystone Oilfield Fabrication LLC · filed 2023-03-06(b)(2)(K)

Proceedings to determine the priority of liens (including whether Keystone converted property to which GACP has a superior right and whether Keystone is entitled to a declaratory judgment) are core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity of liens against estate property as core proceedings.

Nickolas Joseph Clarey and Darci Jean Clarey · filed 2024-11-18(b)(2)(K)

The bankruptcy court can determine the validity of a lien as a core proceeding where property of the estate is involved.

Section 157(c)(1) does not require a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law when it rules on partial summary judgment in a related-to proceeding.

AYH Wind Down LLC v. Silberstein · filed 2025-02-19(c)(1)

Consistent with this, while the Defendant makes clear that he does not consent to the Court entering final orders or judgments, the Court does need not submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as the Motion seeks only partial summary judgment relief.

Section 157(c)(1) provides for a bankruptcy judge to prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in proceedings within “related to” jurisdiction.

BRH-Garver Construction, LLC v. BankFinancial, N.A. · filed 2023-08-18(c)(1)

This argument is a red herring because BankFinancial does not account for the possibility that the presiding bankruptcy judge will prepare proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law, which is the ordinary and required practice for resolving matters within “related to” jurisdiction. See Stern, supra, 564 U.S. at 475 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)).

A bankruptcy court need not submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for an interlocutory order, even if the claim may require that procedure for final adjudication.

Jones v. Brand (In re Belmonte) · filed 2016-06-28(c)(1)

First, regardless of whether the Trustee’s claims would qualify as Stem claims, this Decision and Order is interlocutory..., not final, and as such, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law need not be submitted to the District Court.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy court to decide a motion to dismiss in a related proceeding without submitting proposed findings to the district court when the ruling does not enter a final judgment.

Edwards v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Edwards) · filed 2015-10-06(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), a bankruptcy court hearing a related proceeding proposes findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which must enter any final judgment. Ruling on this motion to dismiss will not result in entry of a final judgment, however, so the court may decide it without making proposed findings to the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review when it cannot enter final judgment on alter ego and veil-piercing claims.

BCL-Sheffield LLC v. Gemini International, Inc. (In re Tolomeo) · filed 2015-09-15(c)(1)

The Plaintiffs do not otherwise argue that their alter ego and veil-piercing claims are core matters that constitutionally may be adjudicated directly by this Court. Accordingly, the Court will issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the questions of alter ego and veil-piercing for de novo review by the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) makes the core/noncore distinction relevant to the finality of a bankruptcy court’s decision and requires district court review of proposed findings in noncore related-to proceedings.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. · filed 2004-07-16(c)(1)

It does not, however, determine jurisdiction inasmuch as districts courts have the power to hear and adjudicate any matter invoking arising under, in, or related to bankruptcy jurisdiction. Rather, the distinction affects the finality of the bankruptcy court’s determination, requiring de novo review by the district court of any proposed findings issued by the bankruptcy court on the basis of its related to jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court handling a noncore proceeding within its related-to jurisdiction to submit proposed findings to the district court, which enters the final judgment.

HA 2003, Inc. v. Federal Insurance (In Re HA 2003, Inc.) · filed 2004-06-09(c)(1)

In cases over which the bankruptcy court has only “related to” jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court may not enter a final judgment.

Section 157(c) requires party consent for a bankruptcy judge to enter judgment in a non-core proceeding; without consent, the judge must follow the procedure for submitting findings and conclusions to the district court.

Taylor v. United States, Department of Education (In Re Taylor) · filed 2001-05-21(c)

Education declined to accept the bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with § 157(c)(2), and the bankruptcy court failed to follow the procedures set forth in § 157(c)(1). Accordingly, since the United States did not waive its sovereign immunity the court’s decision awarding Ms. Taylor attorney fees is a nullity and is reversed.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge in a noncore related proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for de novo review of matters subject to timely objection.

Welt v. Sasson (In Re Dollar Time Group, Inc.) · filed 1998-07-20(c)(1)

Because this is a noncore proceeding, the Court submits the following proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review of those matters to which either party has lodged a timely objection.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for de novo review.

Sneller v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Sneller) · filed 1993-02-11(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court may submit proposed findings and conclusions to the U.S. District Court, which is a court of competent jurisdiction. Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter proposed findings and conclusions in a related proceeding without the parties’ consent, subject to de novo district court review.

Knopfler v. Schraiber (In re Schraiber) · filed 1989-11-17(c)(1)

The cross-claim raises similar issues regarding ownership of the Mall and the composition of the entities involved and will therefore also impact the value of Debtor’s estate. As such, absent consent of the parties, this court may enter proposed findings of fact and law that are subject to de novo review by the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) provides for the bankruptcy court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law for district court review.

Werbungs Und Commerz Union Austalt v. Collectors' Guild, Ltd. · filed 1991-12-30(c)(1)

Without this and other factual determinations made by the bankruptcy court, the court cannot rule on the legality of the settlement order. The court, therefore, remands the issue to the bankruptcy court for findings of fact and conclusions of law in light of Fidelity’s and Permal’s arguments. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear related non-core claims and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for judgment.

Solomon v. Security Pacific Bank Nevada (In Re Nady) · filed 1992-02-05(c)(1)

Nonetheless, as plaintiff points out, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), a Bankruptcy Judge may hear a non-core proceeding otherwise related to the bankruptcy case. In this case, each of the three non-core claims clearly is related to the bankruptcy case. Thus, the Bankruptcy Judge may make and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to this Court on the three non-core claims. After receiving such findings and objections thereto, this Court may enter orders or judgments on the claims.

Section 157 permits district courts to refer related non-core proceedings arising under state law to bankruptcy courts, which submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review.

Patrick T. Kelly and Elizabeth Kelly v. Security Pacific National Bank · filed 1992-02-12(a), (c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) & (c)(1), however, district courts are authorized to refer non-core proceedings, even those arising under state law, to bankruptcy courts if the proceedings are "related to a case under title 11;" the statute authorizes such referrals within the constraints imposed by Northern Pipeline by requiring bankruptcy judges to submit proposed findings and conclusions which are then reviewable by the district court, an Article III entity.

Section 157 requires the bankruptcy court in a non-core proceeding to make proposed findings for the district court to consider along with any objections.

Bright v. Southern Technical College, Inc. (In Re Southern Technical College, Inc.) · filed 1992-08-21(c)(1)

Inasmuch as this matter in non-core, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 157 further lengthen the proceeding because this Court would make proposed findings to the district court which then considers objections.

Section 157(c)(1) requires proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core proceedings, but not for a motion to vacate a ruling on bankruptcy conversion, which is a core proceeding.

In Re Mayhew · filed 1998-07-31(c)(1)

Bankruptcy Rule 9033(a), which corresponds to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), does require a bankruptcy judge to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; however, this rule relates only to “non-core” proceedings as referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 157.

In a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy judge must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court when a party does not consent to final judgment by the bankruptcy court.

Advanta Auto Finance Corp. v. Sugarland Motor Co. · filed 2003-07-08(c)(1)

Sugarland did not consent to the entry of final judgment by the bankruptcy court in this non-core "related to” proceeding. Thus, the bankruptcy judge was required to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related noncore proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court, which reviews timely and specifically objected-to matters de novo.

Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Reynolds (In Re Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc.) · filed 2003-08-14(c)(1)

Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and in accordance with F.R.BANKR.P. 9033, this Court may and will hear the matter and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court, subject to review de novo of those matters to which the parties timely and specifically object.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a party disputing a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions on non-core claims to file specific objections with the district court; the proposals are not judgments subject to appeal.

Spookyworld, Inc. v. Town of Berlin · filed 2003-09-25(c)(1)

If the latter was intended, use of an appeal was a procedural misstep; the proposed findings and conclusions were not a judgment subject to "appeal" but recommendations to the district court. The correct, and required, course was to file "specific objections" to those recommendations that were disputed by Spookyworld.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court in non-core matters when the parties have not consented.

Gray Ex Rel. Dehon, Inc. v. Barnett (In Re Dehon, Inc.) · filed 2005-10-05(c)(1)

Under § 157(c)(1), this Court must, without the consent of the parties (which has not been given in the present case), submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for all non-core matters.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court to proposed findings and conclusions in a related-to, non-core proceeding when a party expressly refuses to consent to a final judgment.

Breeden v. Bennett (In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.) · filed 2007-03-14(c)(1)

Thus, this Court will treat the Trustee’s motion for partial summary judgment as to count XXIX of the Complaint as a “related to” non-core matter on which this Court can make only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In a non-core proceeding without consent to a final judgment, § 157(c)(1) limits the bankruptcy court to submitting proposed findings and conclusions for de novo review by the district court.

Talisman Marina, Inc. v. Heartstone Developers, LLC (In re Talisman Marina, Inc.) · filed 2008-02-15(c)(1)

Moreover, Heart-stone did not consent to the entry of a final judgment by this Court. Therefore, this court’s power would be limited to submitting a recommended findings of fact and conclusion of law to the District Court, who will then review any findings and conclusions of this court de novo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and F.R.B.P. 9033.

In a non-core proceeding, the bankruptcy court must submit proposed findings and conclusions for de novo district court review unless the parties consent to a final order.

Little v. Ressler Hardwoods & Flooring, Inc. (In Re Ressler Hardwoods & Flooring, Inc.) · filed 2010-03-19(c)(1)

Because each Count of the Complaint raised a non-core matter, the Court was required under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for de novo review by the District Court unless the parties consented to this Court’s entry of a final order on the summary judgment motion.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to propose findings and conclusions in a related-to proceeding for the district court to enter judgment.

Gecker v. Flynn (In Re Emerald Casino, Inc.) · filed 2011-08-26(c)(1)

Therefore, the trustee’s complaint would at least be within the “related-to” jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), a bankruptcy judge may propose findings and conclusions to the district court for that court’s entry of judgment pursuant to such jurisdiction.

For a related non-core proceeding without consent to a final judgment, § 157(c)(1) requires the bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Oxford Expositions, LLC v. Questex Media Group, LLC (In re Oxford Expositions, LLC) · filed 2011-09-12(c)(1)

Absent the consent of Questex for this court to enter final orders and judgments, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), the court will consider the issues between these parties as non-core proceedings and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for the entry of any final order or judgment.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court on a statutorily core claim that it cannot constitutionally decide by final judgment.

Reed v. Linehan (In Re Soporex, Inc.) · filed 2011-11-28(c)(1)

Since Congress expressly provided for the issuance of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to “related to” proceedings over which the bankruptcy court had no authority to issue a final judgment except if the litigants expressly consented, there is no reason to believe that any impediment exists to this Court issuing proposed findings and conclusions to the district court with respect to core proceedings of the type that the Stem court has now concluded may not constitutionally be finally determined by a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related fraudulent transfer proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Goldstein v. Eby-Brown, Inc. (In Re Universal, Marketing, Inc.) · filed 2011-11-15(c)(1)

If the proceedings are not core, they nonetheless are related proceedings that a bankruptcy court is authorized to hear and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a district court to refer case-dispositive motions to a bankruptcy court for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In Re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, Pa · filed 2011-11-28(c)(1)

The bankruptcy reference is also withdrawn as to all case dispositive motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), however, the undersigned hereby refers all such motions to the bankruptcy court for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a district court to refer case dispositive motions to a bankruptcy court for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Stettin v. Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2011-11-28(c)(1)

2. The bankruptcy reference is also withdrawn as to all case dispositive motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), however, the undersigned hereby refers all such motions to the bankruptcy court for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear a core fraudulent conveyance claim and submit proposed findings and conclusions when it cannot enter final judgment.

Heller Ehrman LLP v. Arnold & Porter, LLP (In re Heller Ehrman LLP) · filed 2011-12-13(b)(1)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that the bankruptcy court has statutory authority to hear the case, and issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under Stern.