28 U.S.C. § 157

A trustee’s action to recover property alleged to belong to the bankruptcy estates is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) and (E).

Goldhaber v. Tri-Equities, Inc. (In Re Harry C. Partridge Jr. & Sons, Inc.) · filed 1990-04-03(b)(2)(A), (E)

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

A disputed claim to collect an account receivable is a non-core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

F & L Plumbing & Heating Co. v. N.Y. University (In Re F & L Plumbing & Heating Co.) · filed 1990-04-06(b)(2)

Adopting the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Holland in Acolyte, we believe that the collection of an accounts receivable that is clearly in dispute is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(k) treats a proceeding over the secured status of a mortgage claim as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Goins v. Diamond Mortgage Corp. · filed 1990-04-09(b)(2)(k)

This proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(k) and is before this court pursuant to Local Rule 2.33 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois referring all bankruptcy cases and proceedings to this court for hearing and determination.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an action to recover a commission owed to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

AMS Realty, Inc. v. Tao (In Re AMS Realty, Inc.) · filed 1990-04-09(b)(2)

In the instant case, this Court finds that the adversary action in question is a core proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), as this action is one for the recovery of a real estate commission allegedly owed by the Defendants to the Debtor, the owed commissions being property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s motion to reject an executory contract as a core proceeding.

Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Monarch Product Sales Corp. (In Re Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co.) · filed 1990-04-10(b)(2)(A)

This matter is before the court on the motion of Monarch Tool and Manufacturing Company (hereafter Debtor) to reject an executory contract, the parties to which were itself and Monarch Product Sales Corporation (hereafter Distributor). Debtor thus invoked 11 U.S.C. Section 365. The court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. Section 1334 and the General Order of Reference entered in this district. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) makes a motion for relief from the automatic stay a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Camellia Court Apartments, Ltd. · filed 1990-04-13(b)(2)(G)

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

Section 157 treats a debtor’s claim for a declaration of personal liability for post-petition interest and penalties on pre-petition taxes as a core proceeding.

Woodward v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Woodward) · filed 1990-04-13

At the hearing held on the motion to dismiss, however, this court found that the plaintiff’s first claim for relief (in which the plaintiff has requested declaratory relief, declaring that he has no liability for post-petition interest and penalties on pre-petition tax liabilities) is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding to determine dischargeability as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Kawaauhau v. Geiger (In Re Geiger) · filed 1990-04-17(b)(2)(I)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats this lien avoidance proceeding as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re McCain · filed 1990-04-20(b)(2)(K)

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

Section 157 classifies proceedings to determine dischargeability as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Cardenas v. Stowell (In Re Stowell) · filed 1990-04-20(b)(2)(I)

This court concludes that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(I).

Section 157 treats RICO claims against a debtor’s officers as noncore when they invoke no substantive Title 11 right and can arise outside bankruptcy.

Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams · filed 1990-04-25(b)(1)

It is clear from that definition that Howell’s claims against the officers, directors and shareholders of the debtor would not have had core status. The RICO claims do not invoke a substantive right provided by title 11, nor do they arise only in the context of bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies lien avoidance and exemption disputes as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In re Osborne · filed 1990-04-25(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) classifies preference and fraudulent transfer proceedings as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Lasich v. Estate of Wickstrom (In Re Wickstrom) · filed 1990-04-20(b)(2)(F) and (H)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H).

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding as core when it would have no existence outside bankruptcy; a petition for relief from lease forfeiture that can be maintained independently is not core.

366-388 Geary Street, L.P. v. Superior Court · filed 1990-04-26(b)

The section 1179 petition is not “arising under” or “arising in cases under” a title 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Such civil proceedings are defined as “core” pro ... ceedings which are, in turn, defined as those which would have no existence outside bankruptcy proceedings. ... Clearly, a petition for relief under section 1179 can be maintained outside bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157 treats objections to a debtor’s discharge as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Nassau Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Trinsey (In Re Trinsey) · filed 1990-04-27(b)(2)(J)

The instant proceeding, reciting objections to the Debtor’s discharge, is a core proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J), which this bankruptcy court must both hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a core proceeding concerning an alleged automatic stay violation.

In Re Newell · filed 1990-04-30(b)(2)(O)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) which this bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

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

Fitch v. Jones & Lamson MacHine Co. (In Re Jones & Lamson MacHine Co.) · filed 1990-04-30(b)(2)(K)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), I find that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), and that I have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a core proceeding.

In re Willowood East Apartments of Indianapolis II, Ltd. · filed 1990-04-30(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding which this bankruptcy judge may hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (M) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (G) classify a claim for violation of the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

James v. Draper (In Re James) · filed 1990-05-01(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(G)

The Complaint in the instant proceeding asserts, principally, a cause of action arising under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) on the ground that the Defendants violated the automatic stay. It is well-established that such a proceeding is core in nature under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes plan confirmation a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In re Smith · filed 1990-05-01(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies a proceeding for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. · filed 1990-05-03(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) (1984).

Section 157(b)(2) treats this action concerning an alleged automatic stay violation as a core proceeding.

Mann v. Marine Bank West (In Re Omni Graphics, Inc.) · filed 1990-05-08(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a challenge to judgments underlying proofs of claim as a core proceeding when the challenge concerns allowance of those claims.

Winslow v. Williams Group · filed 1990-05-08(b)(2)(B)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate” is a core issue. Judge Matheson’s legal conclusion that the bias issue is the central facet of Winslow’s attack on the judgments, and is therefore at the core of this case, is correct.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O) covers a debtor’s contract claim against a creditor who filed a proof of claim when resolving the dispute affects claim allowance, the debtor-creditor relationship, and administration of the estate.

Mercury Masonry Corp. v. Terminal Construction Corp. (In Re Mercury Masonry Corp.) · filed 1990-05-10(b)(2)(A), (B), (O)

Furthermore, this proceeding is a core proceeding which falls within the confines of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B) and (O) because it affects the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate, the debtor-creditor relationship and ultimately, the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) covers malpractice claims by a debtor’s principals against bankruptcy counsel as core proceedings when the claims arise from the bankruptcy case and benefit the estate’s creditors.

Woodard v. Sanders (In Re SPI Communications & Marketing, Inc.) · filed 1990-05-11(b)(2)

For the reasons given above, this Court holds that the Intervenors’ claims are core proceedings pursuant to § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) covers an adversary proceeding seeking to determine the dischargeability of tax debts and avoid a tax lien as a core proceeding.

Crawford v. United States (In Re Crawford) · filed 1990-05-15(b)(2)

Plaintiff-Debtor filed the above-styled adversary proceeding seeking the determination of the dischargeability of certain debts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1) (Counts One and Two) and requesting that Defendant’s tax lien against Plaintiff-Debtor’s residence be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) to the extent the lien exceeds its value (Count Three). The Court finds this matter to be a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding concerning claims against the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Friedman v. Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund (In re Greenwald) · filed 1990-05-16(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. · filed 1990-05-17(b)(2)(G)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats preference actions as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Pritchard v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 1990-05-18(b)(2)(F)

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

A request for turnover of estate property is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(E).

Commonwealth Electric Co. v. ISYS Securities Systems, Inc. (In Re Commonwealth Electric Co.) · filed 1990-05-21(b)(2)(E)

This complaint which was brought as a request for turnover of property of the estate is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (0).

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

Wines v. Wines (In Re Wines) · filed 1990-05-22(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 the district court’s general order of reference.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine core proceedings, including requests to appoint debtor’s counsel and use cash collateral.

In Re Willowood East Apartments of Indianapolis II, Ltd. · filed 1990-04-30(b)(2)(A), (M), (O)

These are core proceedings which this bankruptcy judge may hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (M) and (0).

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

In Re Riebow · filed 1990-05-30(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(A), in that it deals with matters concering the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings to determine the dischargeability of a debt as core proceedings.

Illinois Department of Employment Security v. Winston (In Re Winston) · filed 1990-05-30(b)(2)

This matter constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (I), and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies proceedings for relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re New Era Co. · filed 1990-05-30(b)(2)(G)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) classifies this secured creditor’s fee application as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Stoecker · filed 1990-06-01(b)(2)(A), (O)

This matter constitutes a core Droceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)/and (O).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies motions to modify Chapter 13 wage orders as core proceedings.

In re Adams · filed 1990-06-06(b)(2)

These motions are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (L) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to reject an alleged executory contract as a core proceeding.

In Re Owen-Johnson · filed 1990-06-07(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treats a Rule 9011 sanctions determination as a core proceeding subject to appellate review, even when the underlying matter is non-core.

Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank (In Re Memorial Estates, Inc.) · filed 1990-06-11(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (O), where a proceeding concerns the administration of the estate or affects the liquidation of the assets of the estate, it is a core proceeding. ... We agree. We hold that a Rule 9011 determination as to whether sanctions are warranted is a core proceeding subject to appellate review.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies proceedings for relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re Kelton Motors, Inc. · filed 1990-06-13(b)(2)(G)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over confirmation of a Chapter 11 liquidation plan as a core proceeding.

In Re Jandous Electric Construction Corp. · filed 1990-06-13(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a motion to dismiss a Chapter 7 petition as a core proceeding.

In Re M & M Commercial Services, Inc. · filed 1990-06-19(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157 treats a proceeding to turn over estate property as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final judgment.

Redfield v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (In Re Robertson) · filed 1990-06-19(b)(2)(E)

In matters which are core proceedings within 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), a Bankruptcy Judge is authorized to hear and determine the proceeding and enter final orders and judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). A proceeding to turn over property of the estate is specifically enumerated as a core proceeding, as is a proceeding to determine whether a given piece of property is exempt property. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (B). Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to and will enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration, turnover of estate property, lien validity, and adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings.

Homan v. Kemba Cincinnati Credit Union (In Re Homan) · filed 1990-06-22(b)(2)

This proceeding, which arises under 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b) in a case referred to this court by the Standing Order of Reference entered in this district on July 30, 1984, is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(A) matters concerning the administration of the estate, (E) orders to turn over property of the estate, • (K) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens, and (0) other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a dispute over who owns a creditor’s mortgage as a core proceeding when it does not directly concern the debtor’s assets or administration of the estate.

Kincaid Estate · filed 1990-06-22(b)(2)

Instead, these proceedings center around who the creditor is. That is, who owns the mortgage. This is not one of the core proceedings identified at ...28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2). This does not directly concern the debtor’s real property or the debtor’s assets or administration of the debtor’s estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (E), and (O) makes this proceeding concerning an attorney’s conduct in a bankruptcy case a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

In Re Thompson · filed 1990-05-29(b)(2)(A), (E), (O)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E) and (O). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) and (K) allows the bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings involving relief from the automatic stay and the scope of a security interest.

In Re Bert's Refrigeration, Inc. · filed 1990-06-13(b)(2)(G) and (K)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration and adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings.

Dexter v. Grove (In Re Dexter) · filed 1990-06-27(b)(2)(A), (O)

This proceeding, which arises under 28 U.S.C. 1334(b) in a case referred to this court by the Standing Order of Reference entered in this district on July 30, 1984, is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) — matters concerning the administration of the estate and (O) — other proceedings affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) permits a bankruptcy court to decide, as a core proceeding, a debtor’s interest in disputed funds and whether that interest belongs to the estate.

Luring v. Administrator, Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Program (In Re Petrey) · filed 1990-06-27(b)(2)(E)

This court has jurisdiction to determine, as a core proceeding, the debtor’s interest in the funds in question and to determine whether that interest is includa-ble in the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a contested matter concerning a claimed exemption and a lien on estate property as a core proceeding.

In re Shuler · filed 1990-06-27(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) covers a trustee’s motion for summary judgment in an estate trespass action as a core proceeding.

Chatz v. Hawthorn Corp. (In re May) · filed 1990-06-28(b)(2)(A), (O)

The motion constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

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

MacLeod v. Arcuri (In Re Arcuri) · filed 1990-06-30(b)(2)(J)

This is a core proceeding as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(b)(2) treats objections to exemption claims and motions to avoid liens as core proceedings.

In Re Indvik · filed 1990-07-09(b)(2)

These are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (0).

A proceeding to determine a surety's liability is core when its outcome substantially affects estate administration and the debtor-creditor relationship.

In Re Chateaugay Corp. · filed 1990-07-11(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

This declaratory judgment action also falls within the jurisdiction provided by § 157(b)(2)(O) because it will directly affect the debtor-creditor relationship. ... In accordance with the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that this Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) covers proceedings that substantially affect estate administration and the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

LTV Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1990-07-11(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that this Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2) treats this adversary proceeding as core, allowing the bankruptcy court to enter a final order.

Reece v. Scharf (In Re Reece) · filed 1990-07-12(b)(2)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The Court therefore has jurisdiction to enter this Memorandum and a final Order.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify this debtor’s prepetition state-law breach-of-contract claim against a noncreditor as a core proceeding.

Southwinds Associates Ltd. v. Reedy (In Re Southwinds Associates Ltd.) · filed 1990-07-12(b)(2)

Likewise, this Court finds that the state law breach of contract action contemplated by the Debtor here is indistinguishable from the action which spawned Marathon. Consequently, we rule that the instant action is not a core matter.

Motions to reject a collective bargaining agreement, appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, or convert a case to Chapter 7 are core proceedings under § 157(b).

In Re Express Freight Lines, Inc. · filed 1990-07-13(b)

This court is now called upon to decide the debt- or’s motion to reject a collective bargaining agreement, the creditors’ committee’s motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee or, alternatively, to convert the case to one under Chapter 7. These motions are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a motion to approve a Chapter 11 disclosure statement as a core proceeding.

In Re Filex, Inc. · filed 1990-07-13(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157 treats the determination of sanctions for a willful violation of the automatic stay as a core matter.

In Re Hooker Investments, Inc. · filed 1990-07-13(b)(1) and (2)

The determination is a core matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (2).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding concerning the dischargeability of debts as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Storage Technology Corp. · filed 1990-07-18(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and decide core proceedings, including determinations of debt dischargeability and objections to discharge.

Miller v. Harper (In Re Harper) · filed 1990-07-18(b)

This court may “hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11 [including] determinations as to the dis-chargeability of particular debts; [and] objections to discharges.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Thus, plaintiff’s complaint is not fatally defective.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies covered bankruptcy matters as core proceedings.

Storage Technology Corp. v. Comite Pro Rescate De La Salud (In re Storage Technology Corp.) · filed 1990-07-18(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2) treats an objection to Chapter 13 plan confirmation involving secured claim treatment as a core proceeding.

In Re Boykins · filed 1990-07-20(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a proceeding concerning professional compensation as a core proceeding.

In re Cardinal Industries, Inc. · filed 1990-07-25(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats adjudication of disputed claims as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Englewood Community Hospital Corp. · filed 1990-07-26(b)(2)(B)

Adjudication of disputed claims is one of the core proceedings listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a surcharge under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c) as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Senior G & a Operating Co., Inc. · filed 1990-07-30(b)(2)

A surcharge under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 506(c) has no existence outside bankruptcy and is clearly a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2) which the bankruptcy judge has the power to both hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a claim arising directly from the administration of a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Clairmont Transfer Co. v. Rice, Rice, Gilbert & Marston (In Re Clairmont Transfer Co.) · filed 1990-07-31(b)(2)(A)

There is no doubt that this is a core proceeding, as defined by either 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) or § 157(b)(2)(0), in that the alleged conduct and harm resulted during the course of and as a direct result of the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (K), and (L) permits the bankruptcy court to treat this dispute as a core proceeding and enter final orders.

Utrup v. Clifton (In re Clifton) · filed 1990-07-23(b)(2)(A), (K), and (L)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (K), and (L). These Findings and Conclusions and Orders are the final orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings, including disputes over lien validity, extent, or priority and the dischargeability of debts.

Dillard v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Dillard) · filed 1990-07-31(b)(1), (b)(2)(I), (b)(2)(K)

In a core proceeding that arises in or arises under Title 11, a Bankruptcy Judge is authorized to “hear and determine” the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). Determinations as to the “validity, extent, or priority of liens” and the dischargeability of particular debts are both specifically enumerated as core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), (I).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits a bankruptcy court to treat a proceeding for sanctions over filings in a bankruptcy case as core and enter final judgment.

Bratton v. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Jackson & Tucker (In Re Bratton) · filed 1990-08-02(b)(2)(A)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats plan confirmation and proceedings affecting debtor-creditor or equity security holder relationships as core proceedings.

In Re Allegheny International, Inc. · filed 1990-08-02(b)(2)

The instant matters are core proceedings, involving confirmation of a plan of reorganization, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), and “other proceedings affecting ... the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship....” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of dischargeability as core proceedings.

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Rockmacher (In Re Rockmacher) · filed 1990-08-02(b)(2)(I)

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

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a trustee’s RICO claim against a third party as a core proceeding when the claim invokes no bankruptcy right and could exist outside bankruptcy.

Barnett v. Stern · filed 1990-08-02(b)(2)

Under the Wood test, Levit's RICO claim against Todd in his individual capacity is not a core proceeding. First, the claim does not invoke a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law. Instead, it invokes rights created under the federal RICO statute. ... Second, this is a claim that could exist outside of the bankruptcy context. ... Thus, we conclude that, because Levit's RICO claim against Todd would not have been a core proceeding in bankruptcy, Levit was not required to assert his RICO claim in the adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding to disgorge excessive bankruptcy attorneys’ fees as a core proceeding.

In Re Mellard · filed 1990-08-03(b)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over land central to a confirmed Chapter 11 plan as a core proceeding.

K Lazy K Ranch, Inc. v. Farm Credit Bank of Omaha (In Re K Lazy K Ranch, Inc.) · filed 1990-08-07(b)(2)

The Court finds the instant matter is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (0).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over exemptions and lien avoidance as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re McKaskle · filed 1990-08-08(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (K), (O), 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), (f)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) classify these bankruptcy proceedings as core proceedings.

In re Olive Street Investments, Inc. · filed 1990-08-08(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)-(2)(A), and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(M) was applied to classify the asset sale approval as a core proceeding.

In Re Channel One Communications, Inc. · filed 1990-08-09(b)(2)(M)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(M).

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

In Re Apex Oil Co. · filed 1990-08-16(b)(2)(L)

The proceeding with respect to confirmation of the Plan is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157 treats proceedings to determine the scope of a Chapter 7 discharge order and the dischargeability of tax claims as core proceedings.

In Re Torres · filed 1990-08-16(b)(2)(I)

Proceedings held to determine the scope and affect of a discharge order and the dischargeability of tax claims in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

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

In re 11,111, Inc. · filed 1990-08-17(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding involving a creditor’s proof of claim and a debtor’s adversary proceeding on the same subject matter as core.

Mercury Masonry Corp. v. Terminal Construction Corp. (In re Mercury Masonry Corp.) · filed 1990-08-20(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) involving Terminal’s proof of claim and the debtor’s adversary proceeding with respect to the same subject matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) classify proceedings concerning estate administration and the allowance of claims as core proceedings.

In Re First SEC. Mortg. Co., Inc. · filed 1990-08-21(b)(2)(A), (B)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), 11 U.S.C. § 503(b).

A proceeding to determine whether funds held by a bankruptcy trustee belong to the estate is a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Wynne v. Streetman (In Re Russell) · filed 1990-08-24(b)(2)(E)

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

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

In Re Gain Electronics Corp. · filed 1990-08-29(b)(2)(K)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(K) and (N) treats proceedings to determine liens and approve property sales as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Mueller v. Youmans (In Re Youmans) · filed 1990-08-15(b)(2)(K) and (N)

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

Section 157 treats determining whether property belongs to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding, but a later ownership dispute between third parties over that property is not core.

In Re Billie Lamont Gardner, Debtor. Terryl A. Gardner v. United States of America, and William H. Zimmerman, Jr., Trust · filed 1990-09-18(b)

Although determination of whether the marital property is part of the bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding, the later determination of the ownership of the marital property as between third parties, such as Mrs. Gardner and the government, is not a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats preference recovery and proceedings to determine competing lien priorities as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may finally decide.

T.M. Sweeney & Sons, LTL Services, Inc. v. Crawford (In Re T.M. Sweeney & Sons, LTL Services, Inc.) · filed 1990-09-21(b)(2)

In a core proceeding that arises in or under Title 11, a bankruptcy judge is empowered to hear and determine the proceeding and issue final orders and judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). A proceeding to recover a preference is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F). Similarly, a proceeding to determine the priority of competing liens is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over a contract made during a Chapter 9 case to fund its plan as a core proceeding.

Zaragosa Properties, Inc. v. Ake (In Re Lake Grady Road & Bridge District) · filed 1990-09-26(b)(2)

It is a contract entered into by a debtor during the pendency of the Chapter 9 case and thus, disputes regarding the contract are core proceedings.

Section 157(b) treats estate counterclaims, lien determinations, and proceedings adjusting the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

604 Columbus Avenue Realty Trust v. Capitol Bank & Trust Co. (In Re 604 Columbus Avenue Realty Trust) · filed 1990-09-28(b)(2)

The claims are counterclaims by the bankruptcy estates of Young and the Columbus Avenue Realty Trust, § 157(b)(2)(C); determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens, § 157(b)(2)(K); and proceedings affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship, § 157(b)(2)(0). The Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) to hear and determine these claims.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to finally decide a referred mandamus request within bankruptcy jurisdiction when the request is a core proceeding.

In Re Vance · filed 1990-10-04(b)

The present action, even if in the nature of mandamus, is certainly within bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction, has been referred to this Court, and is a core proceeding. This Court may entertain any mandamus petition which is within bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction as delegate and unit of the District Court; and may finally dispose of any such mandamus petition which is also a core proceeding.

Section 157 does not treat state-law damages claims for wrongful levy, conversion, and emotional distress as core proceedings merely because they may affect the debtor’s estate.

Haugen v. Butler MacHinery, Inc. (In Re Haugen) · filed 1990-10-18(b)(1)

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 9033 of the Federal Bankruptcy Rules, the Bankruptcy Court’s Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted and Plaintiff’s case against the Defendant is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling in the appropriate state court. ... Clearly, Haugen’s present adversary proceeding seeking monetary damages for excessive and wrongful levy, emotional distress, and conversion is not a core proceeding pursuant to section 157 and correlating case law.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final, appealable order awarding compensation to professionals and court officers because that determination is a core proceeding.

In Re North American Oil & Gas, Inc. · filed 1990-10-19(b)

The determination and award of compensation of professionals and court officers in a bankruptcy case is a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final, appealable order.

Civil contempt proceedings arising out of core bankruptcy matters are themselves core proceedings under § 157(b)(1).

Mountain America Credit Union v. Skinner · filed 1990-10-22(b)(1)

Civil contempt proceedings arising out of core matters are themselves core matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats motions to enforce the automatic stay as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may decide.

In Re James · filed 1990-10-25(b)(2)(G)

Section 157(b)(2) provides a nonexclusive list of core proceedings. Among the proceedings listed are “motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.” § 157(b)(2)(G). Likewise, motions to enforce the automatic stay are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action to obtain estate property, which requires determining the nature and extent of that property, as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Kincaid · filed 1990-10-25(b)(2)(A)

Since an action to obtain property of the estate would necessarily involve a determination regarding "the nature and extent of property of the estate," the action would also be a matter "concerning the administration of the estate," and, therefore, a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(A). We hold that this is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action to obtain estate property as a core proceeding because it requires determining the nature and extent of the estate.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Watson · filed 1990-10-25(b)(2)(A)

Since an action to obtain property of the estate would necessarily involve a determination regarding “the nature and extent of property of the estate,” the action would also be a matter “concerning the administration of the estate,” and, therefore, a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). We hold that this is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) does not make a debtor’s state-law contract claims core proceedings merely because the defendant files counterclaims in bankruptcy court.

Vylene Enterprises, Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In Re Vylene Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1990-10-29(b)

Even if that ruling was correct as to the counterclaims, it is the court’s belief that the filing of the counterclaims in the only forum capable of providing relief from the automatic stay is not sufficient to convert the whole adversary proceeding into a “core” proceeding.

An adversary proceeding that presents no actual case or controversy cannot be classified as a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) or (O).

Murray Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance (In Re Murray Industries, Inc.) · filed 1990-11-13(b)(2)(A), (O)

In light of the foregoing, it is equally evident that this adversary proceeding cannot be classified as a core proceeding within the meaning of § 157(b)(2)(A) or (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding to determine whether creditors’ claims may be allowed in a bankruptcy case as core.

Associates v. Franklin Realty Group, Inc. (In Re FRG, Inc.) · filed 1990-11-19(b)(2)(B)

In any event, we find that the matter is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), as this proceeding is the archetype of a matter so classified in In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 415-18 (3d Cir.1987).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an application to employ professionals as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and finally adjudicate.

In Re Benjamin's-Arnolds, Inc. · filed 1990-11-20(b)(2)(A)

Moreover, this Court may hear and finally adjudicate this application because its subject matter renders such adjudication a “core” proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over postpetition insurance agreements as a core proceeding when the coverage is a major estate asset needed to administer the bankruptcy estate.

Official Creditors' Committee of Products Liability & Personal Injury v. International Insurance Co. (In Re Pettibone Co · filed 1990-11-28(b)(2)(A)

The coverage provided by the PL Insurance Agreements constitutes a major asset of the estate and as such is the only means whereby an effective administration of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate can be accomplished for the benefit of injured claimants. Thus, any action regarding that coverage arises under Title 11 and is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) classify proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Winston & Strawn v. Kelly (In Re Churchfield Management & Investment Corp.) · filed 1990-11-16(b)(2)(F), (H)

In addition, §§ 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) of the Code explicitly provide that proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances are core proceedings.

Section 157 treats a dispute over the scope of a debtor’s discharge, including whether someone violated the discharge order, as a core proceeding.

In Re Schatz · filed 1990-12-06

Since the question of discharge is a “core” matter, the question whether someone violated the bankruptcy court’s discharge order must also, in light of § 105, be a core matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (C) classify the allowance or disallowance of a creditor’s claim and an estate’s counterclaim against that creditor as core proceedings.

Wes-Mar Group, Inc. v. Womack (In Re Malkove & Womack, Inc.) · filed 1990-12-07(b)(2)(B), (C)

By electing to be an active “player” in this civil action and having removed it to the bankruptcy court, the debtor has, in effect, waived the stay and has treated the civil action as including or encompassing the core proceedings described in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (C). Insofar as concerns only the plaintiff and the debtor, this proceeding has become a core proceeding for allowance or disallowance of the plaintiff’s claim against the debtor and the counterclaims by the estate against an entity filing a claim against the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers postpetition disputes over professional compensation central to estate administration as core proceedings the bankruptcy court can hear and determine.

Baehr v. Beasley (In Re Trinsey) · filed 1991-01-07(b)(2)(A)

Even if these pleadings did not in themselves confer jurisdiction upon this court to hear and determine this proceeding, ... it is clear that this proceeding involves post-petition matters which relate to compensation of professionals, clearly a matter central to the administration of the Debt-or’s estate. ... Therefore, we are obliged to determine this proceeding as well as hear it.

Section 157(b)(2) treats prepetition state-law tort and contract claims that do not depend on bankruptcy law as noncore proceedings.

O'Neil v. Sherman (In Re TVR of America, Inc.) · filed 1991-01-16(b)(2)

All four counts of the trustee’s complaint clearly sound in prepetition state-law claims against the defendant based on common law tort and contract principles. None of these claims could have been filed in a federal court, absent the bankruptcy petition, and none depend on the application of bankruptcy law. ... The trustee’s complaint in this adversary proceeding does not constitute a core proceeding, but one that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.

Section 157 does not treat prepetition state law claims against nondebtors as core proceedings merely because they may affect a bankruptcy estate.

Davis v. the Merv Griffin Co. · filed 1991-01-29(b)(2)

Therefore, we accept the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and adopt its recommendation that this action be remanded from that court to this court. ... In the instant case, it is clear that plaintiffs claims against TGC and Griffin for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract rights and breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealings are state law claims which do not fit within the definition of a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 treats proceedings to prosecute violations of the automatic stay as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Rolleston (In Re Ionosphere Clubs Inc.) · filed 1991-02-14(b)(2)

I agree with the Fourth Circuit that a proceeding to prosecute a violation of the automatic stay is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157. Enforcement of the automatic stay is essential to orderly and equitable administration of the estate. I therefore affirm the holding of the Bankruptcy Judge that suits by the trustee to prosecute violations of the automatic stay are within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) permit a bankruptcy court to treat its decision on pending motions to dismiss as a core proceeding while deferring classification of the underlying complaint.

Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. Ohio (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.) · filed 1991-02-20(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The court determines that, because the parties have not been required to address these issues, it would be premature to enter determinations concerning abstention and core or non-core; however, the court does enter a limited determination that this decision resolving the pending motions to dismiss is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (O).

Section 157 classifies these consolidated adversary proceedings as core proceedings.

Lowin v. Dayton Securities Associates (In Re the Securities Group 1980) · filed 1991-02-20

Even without reference to any procedural considerations, it is clear that these consolidated adversary proceedings are in fact "core proceedings” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a determination of whether assets belong to a debtor’s bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Rodeck v. Olszewski (In Re Olszewski) · filed 1991-02-21(b)(2)(A)

The portion of the proceeding over which the court has jurisdiction involves a determination of whether certain assets are assets of debtors’ bankruptcy estate and is, therefore, a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) includes proceedings concerning a debtor’s claimed exemption among core bankruptcy matters.

Coker v. Bank of Cabot (In re Coker) · filed 1991-02-22(b)(2)(B)

Moreover, the Court finds that the matter before it is a “core matter” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) as exemplified in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Westchester Avenue Marina Realty, Inc. · filed 1991-02-25(b)(2)(G)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to determine the preclusive effect of bankruptcy orders and enjoin related state litigation as a core proceeding.

Eastover Bank for Savings v. Smith (In Re Little) · filed 1991-02-27(b)(2)(A), (O)

The essential purpose of the complaint filed by Eastover is to obtain a declaratory judgment concerning the pre-clusive effect of certain court orders entered during the administration of the debtors’ bankruptcy estates. In addition, the complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from pursuing a state court cause of action against Eastover. As such, the Court is of the opinion that the cause of action filed herein by Eastover is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine whether confirmation discharged a debt as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Brooks Fashion Stores, Inc. v. Michigan Employment Security Commission (In Re Brooks Fashion Stores, Inc.) · filed 1991-03-04(b)(2)

A proceeding is core pursuant to § 157 if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if it is a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. ... The gravamen of this adversary proceeding is such a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats administration of estate property as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance v. Rusty Jones, Inc. (In Re Rusty Jones, Inc.) · filed 1991-03-13(b)(2)(A)

Core jurisdiction therefore lies over administration of estate property under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a state-law challenge to a sheriff’s sale a core proceeding merely because the outcome affects the debtor’s rights in estate property.

Lomas & Nettleton Co. v. Warren (In Re Warren) · filed 1991-03-15(b)(2)

The objections are overruled; as the Bankruptcy Judge concluded in his Report and Recommendations, this proceeding is properly characterized as “related” to the underlying bankruptcy case and cannot properly be classified as a core proceeding.

A dispute over the extent and validity of a lien is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(E).

In Re Cook · filed 1991-03-29(b)(2)(E)

Debtors’ dispute with the FmHA, involving the extent and validity of FmHA’s lien, is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a turnover action as a core proceeding even when deciding it requires resolving an intertwined state-law ownership issue.

Bayless v. Crabtree Through Adams · filed 1991-04-02(b)(2)

The fact that an issue involves state law does not preclude it from being a "core" matter. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(3). Again, because the issue of property ownership is inextricably intertwined with the turnover action, one of the illustrative categories of "core" proceedings listed in Sec. 157(b)(2), it is a core matter properly within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter judgment in a core proceeding involving issues arising from bankruptcy and a right asserted under bankruptcy law.

Michigan Employment Security Commission v. Wolverine Radio Co. (In re Wolverine Radio Co.) · filed 1991-04-08(b)(1)

Nevertheless, we find that because this action involves issues which arose because of a bankruptcy proceeding — the dischargeability of debts and the confirmation of a plan — and because Wolverine asserts a right based on bankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. § 363(f), this action is a core proceeding and the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter judgment on the motion.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not treat a post-confirmation breach-of-duty claim as administration of an estate that ceased to exist at confirmation.

Finkelstein v. TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. (TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp.) · filed 1991-04-11(b)(2)(A)

Moreover, Finkel-stein’s claim for breach of duty by Trans-American after confirmation of the plan does not fall within the enumerated matters subsumed within “case administration” by the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157 treats a debtor’s post-petition causes of action as core proceedings on which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

General American Communications Corp. v. Landsell (In Re General American Communications Corp.) · filed 1991-04-25(b)(2)

We determine GACC’s proceedings against Defendants are “core” because GACC’s causes of action against Defendants accrued post-petition, thus we have the power to enter a final Order.

Section 157 treats the removed real estate contract claims as related, noncore proceedings.

Precious International, Ltd. v. Burrwood Development Corp. (In re Precious International, Ltd.) · filed 1991-04-26(b)(2)

This is a proceeding relating to a case under title 11 and is not a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The proceeding was heard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 treats determination and liquidation of a creditor’s claim and the question of dischargeability as core matters.

Longo v. McLaren (In Re McLaren) · filed 1991-05-02

Both the determination of the claim, including its liquidation to a monetary award, and the question of dis-chargeability are core matters not merely because they are categorized as such in 28 U.S.C. § 157 but, more fundamentally, because, as the Supreme Court said in Lan-genkamp, they are “integral to restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship through the bankruptcy court’s equity jurisdiction.”

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (E) treats a postpetition insurance claim for damage to estate property as a core proceeding when the policy proceeds would be subject to turnover.

West Electronics, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. (In Re West Electronics, Inc.) · filed 1991-06-12(b)(2)(A), (E)

Having determined that the loss and the cause of action occurred post-petition, and that the cause of action belongs to the debtor in possession, this case fits into the category described in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) as a “matter[s] concerning the administration of the estate” because it is a case which arose under the bankruptcy case itself since it involves damage to property which was already property of the estate and belonged to the debtor in possession whether by timing or by the operation of 11 U.S.C. §§ 542, 549 and 362(a)(4). Additionally, this action, by definition, is a core proceeding as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). The proceeds of the policy substitute for the damaged property and as such are property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. Because the proceeds would be subject to turnover pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542, this action is a core matter as set forth in the statute.

Section 157(b) excludes a state-law proceeding that could exist outside bankruptcy from core proceedings, even if it affects administration of the estate.

Eastport Associates v. City of Los Angeles (In re Eastport Associates) · filed 1991-06-14(b)

The suit for declaratory judgment on Eastport’s development entitlements could just as easily have been brought in state court, regardless of whether Eastport was in bankruptcy. Therefore, the adversary proceeding is not a core proceeding, though it is a related proceeding because it will affect the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter judgment in a core proceeding involving issues that arose because of bankruptcy and a right asserted under bankruptcy law.

In Re Wolverine Radio Company · filed 1991-06-25(b)(1)

Nevertheless, we find that because this action involves issues which arose because of a bankruptcy proceeding--the dischargeability of debts and the confirmation of a plan--and because Wolverine asserts a right based on bankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363(f), this action is a core proceeding and the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter judgment on the motion.

A request for attorneys’ fees arising from a core bankruptcy proceeding is itself a core proceeding.

In Re Chambers · filed 1991-06-28(b)(2)(B)

The request for attorneys’ fees arising out of a core bankruptcy proceeding is also a core proceeding. Attorneys’ fees can not arise in a vacuum but must be a part of some underlying litigation.

Section 157(b) treats a removed state court action as a core proceeding when its substance is the resolution of a claim against the debtor.

Leslie Salt Co. v. Marshland Development, Inc. (In Re Marshland Development, Inc.) · filed 1991-07-15(b)

Included within the non-exclusive list of core matters in section 157(b) is the process of the allowance and disallowance of claims against the estate. The Court concludes ... that just as private rights are transmuted into public rights if the Langenkamp test is satisfied, this removed, state court action has been transmuted into a core proceeding, by virtue of the fact that the essence of the action is now the resolution of a claim against the debtor.

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding as core when it arises under Title 11 or arises in a bankruptcy case; a claim that can exist outside bankruptcy is noncore even if it affects estate administration.

Eastport Associates v. City of Los Angeles · filed 1991-07-31(b)

28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b) defines core proceedings as ones "arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11," and gives a nonexhaustive list of types of core proceedings. ... Here, the adversary proceeding does not arise under or arise in a case under title 11 because it is not a cause of action created by title 11 or one that only arises in title 11 cases. The suit for declaratory judgment on Eastport's development entitlements could just as easily have been brought in state court, regardless of whether Eastport was in bankruptcy. Therefore, the adversary proceeding is not a core proceeding, though it is a related proceeding because it will affect the administration of the estate.

Section 157(c) treats disputed insurance coverage claims brought by debtors as non-core proceedings.

Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance Co. · filed 1991-08-05(c)

Disputed coverage claims by debtors against insurers are non-core.

Section 157(b) does not treat this state-law defamation action as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Flores-Rivera v. Telemundo Group · filed 1991-08-05(b)

Two factors that weigh in favor of abstention are that this case is a non-core proceeding ... and only Commonwealth law issues are involved since the sole question is whether defendants actions were defamatory.

Section 157 treats a proceeding that directly affects the debtor-creditor relationship as a core proceeding.

In re Tranel · filed 1991-08-05(b)(2)(O)

Section 157 delineates a host of actions which it deems core proceedings. Included in this list are "proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship...." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(O) (1991). The contemplated state court action strikes at the heart of the debtor-creditor relationship, and as such, is a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction.

A dispute over a partnership’s contract is not a core proceeding when the partnership is separate from the bankrupt entity and the dispute concerns state law rights.

Littner v. McKanic · filed 1991-08-06(b)(2)

The statute granting jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court defines a core proceeding as matters involving the estate or claims arising out of the estate or the bankruptcy. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... The record as it stands shows that the Agreement was assigned to the Partnership, a separate entity, and that therefore the dispute with Rochdale concerning the Agreement was a separate state law issue and not a core proceeding. The bankruptcy court was thus without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate it.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a dispute over an alleged agreement that would alter a confirmed reorganization plan’s debtor-creditor terms as a core proceeding.

Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. Case · filed 1991-08-09(b)(2)(O)

Moreover, if Case's allegations had proved meritorious, the agreement to satisfy the promissory note with services would have altered the express terms of the reorganization plan and would have constituted an "adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship" under Sec. 157(b)(2)(O). ... This dispute clearly "affects the distribution of the debtor's assets" and is appropriately a core proceeding under Sec. 157.

Section 157 treats a dispute over a note integral to a confirmed reorganization plan as a core proceeding when it affects the distribution of the debtor’s assets.

Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Case (In re Case) · filed 1991-08-09(b)(2)(O)

This dispute clearly “affects the distribution of the debtor’s assets” and is appropriately a core proceeding under § 157.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments in core proceedings, including a debtor in possession’s action to enforce a sale contract against the highest bidder at a bankruptcy auction.

Governor's Island v. Eways · filed 1991-08-23(b)(1)

The bankruptcy judge correctly held that an action by the debtors in possession to enforce their sales contract against Eways, the highest bidder at a bankruptcy public auction sale, was a core proceeding.

A creditor’s state law contribution and indemnification claims against a debtor’s guarantors do not qualify as core proceedings when they arise from the guarantees rather than the estate’s preference claim.

Kandel v. Wampum Hardware (In Re K & R Mining, Inc.) · filed 1991-09-11(b)(2)

The cross-claim is clearly a state law contract action. The majority of courts addressing this issue conclude that such an action is properly characterized as not qualifying for core status. ... This court agrees and finds that the cross-claim is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats sanctions for conduct that impedes administration of the estate as a core proceeding, even when the conduct arose in a related proceeding.

Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank (In Re Memorial Estates, Inc.) · filed 1991-09-13(b)(2)

This court again agrees with Judge Shadur’s analysis that conduct which, as Judge Schwartz found Mr. Needler’s did, “ ‘impeded the administration of the estate itself.' ” ... fits within either subsection (A) or (0) and thus the matter of sanctions related to that conduct is “core”.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (C) makes a foreclosure proceeding core when it is effectively one proceeding with a creditor’s filed claim and the debtor’s defenses and counterclaims to that claim.

Citicorp Savings of Illinois v. Chapman (In Re Chapman) · filed 1991-09-20(b)(2)(B) and (C)

It is clear here, however, that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (C) because Citicorp has filed a claim for the amount owed to them under the mortgage, and Debtors have filed the same affirmative defenses and counterclaims against that claim as they filed in this case. In essence, the claim and counterclaim are one proceeding with the removed foreclosure case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a Chapter 7 trustee’s suit to recover funds for distribution to estate creditors as a core proceeding.

Pongetti v. Lee (In Re Bingham Systems, Inc.) · filed 1991-09-30(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), and (E). ... In this particular proceeding, the Chapter 7 case trustee has initiated a cause of action in an attempt to bring funds into the bankruptcy estate for distribution to the estate creditors in conformity with the priorities set forth in the Bankruptcy Code. ... Consequently, the court reiterates its earlier conclusion that this is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a claim against federal agencies over a denied disaster payment based on federal statutes and regulations as a core proceeding.

Winchester v. Commodity Credit Corp. (In re Winchester) · filed 1991-10-04(b)(2)

The balance of the plaintiff’s complaint, dealing with the defendants’ decision to disallow the 1988 rice disaster payment allegedly owed to Clarence E. Winchester, is also a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), and (0). This portion of the complaint asserts a cause of action against two federal agencies which is not based on state law, but rather on federal statutes and regulations that are applicable to said agencies.

Abstention from a core proceeding to determine the allowance of a claim is itself a core proceeding under § 157.

Southmark Prime Plus, L.P. v. Southmark Storage Associates Ltd. Partnership (In Re Southmark Storage Associates Ltd. Par · filed 1991-10-11(b)(3)

I am persuaded by the line of cases that hold that abstention from hearing a core proceeding, such as the instant adversary proceeding to determine the allowance of a claim, is also a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a proceeding core merely because it may affect the bankruptcy estate.

Adams v. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians Economic Development Authority (In Re Adams) · filed 1991-10-28(b)(2)(A)

§ 157(b)(2)(A) was not meant to confer core status on all proceedings having some effect on the estate.

Section 157 allows bankruptcy judges to hear and determine compensation awards for professionals who serve a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

In Re Bernard Hill, Inc. · filed 1991-10-29(b)(1)

The award of compensation to professional persons who render services to a bankruptcy estate is a “core proceeding” arising under title 11 of the United States Code which bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a proceeding to enforce a Chapter 11 plan when it is integral to administering claims under the plan.

Port Terminal Railroad v. Pettibone Corp. (In Re Pettibone Corp.) · filed 1991-10-31(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) since this matter arises in a case under Title 11, this Court has retained jurisdiction to enforce the Plan, and the PL Insurance Agreements and policies are the only means by which an effective administration of products liability claims under the Plan can be accomplished.

Section 157(b)(2) can classify an unjust enrichment claim against the debtor as a core proceeding.

Robert v. Schiff (In Re 400 South Main Street) · filed 1991-11-07(b)(2)

At least with respect to Count IV of the Complaint which alleges that the Debtor was unjustly enriched by Plaintiffs, we rule that this is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies proceedings under § 553(b) to recover setoffs as core matters.

Hankerson v. United States Department of Education (In Re Hankerson) · filed 1991-11-12(b)(2)(F)

Therefore, we conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) applies to these proceedings even though they are determined under § 553(b), and that the proceedings are core matters.