28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(a) lets a bankruptcy court exercise the district court’s referred power to decide an application to waive appeal fees under § 1915.

Sonya LaRaye Owens · filed 2019-08-19(a)

Bankruptcy courts are not included in the definition of a “court of the United States,” but I view that as irrelevant because the district court is a court of the United States, and by way of referral under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the bankruptcy court exercises, in the first instance, the power of the district court to act on such an application.

Section 157(a) allows a bankruptcy court to exercise the district court’s power to transfer a bankruptcy case under § 1412 when the district court has referred the case to it.

In Re Enron Corp. · filed 2002-01-11(a)

The bankruptcy court’s authority to exercise the district court’s power to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1412 stems from the district court’s referral of the case to the bankruptcy, court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 does not give a bankruptcy court authority to grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis when it lacks that authority under § 1915(a).

In Re Buck · filed 1993-08-16

On the other hand, it has Congress, in the very same piece of legislation, impliedly granting such authority to bankruptcy courts by means of 28 U.S.C. §§ 151 and 157. ... This court feels constrained to reject the holdings of Melendez and McGinnis, which imply that bankruptcy courts have authority to permit litigants to proceed in forma pauperis even though they unquestionably lack such authority under the statute which governs in forma pauperis requests.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy judge to enter an appropriate order on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a referred adversary proceeding.

McGinnis v. McGinnis (In Re McGinnis) · filed 1993-04-20(b)(1)

Thus, in delegating the authority to the bankruptcy court to hear title 11 cases, the district court also delegates its authority to entertain petitions and motions necessary to fully and fairly adjudicate these cases, including petitions to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(b) or (c).

Section 157(a)'s referral of bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges does not give bankruptcy courts authority to waive filing fees under § 1915(a).

In Re Jon Robert Perroton, Debtor. Jon Robert Perroton v. Nancy L.G. Gray · filed 1992-03-09(a)

Finally, even if a bankruptcy court is not a “court of the United States” under § 451 and thus lacks direct authority to act under § 1915(a), it could be argued that the bankruptcy court nonetheless has the authority to waive fees under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... This argument, however, also fails given the clear expression of congressional intent to exclude the bankruptcy court from those courts authorized to waive fees under § 1915(a) given the legislative history of § 451 discussed above.

A party that voluntarily files a bankruptcy petition and an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court can waive an objection to that court entering final orders.

TIE Communications, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp. (In re TIE Communications, Inc.) · filed 1993-03-29(c)(2)

The filings waive any objection TIE might have to the jurisdiction of this court to enter final orders.

Section 157(b)(1) gives a bankruptcy court authority to rule on a motion to dismiss a Chapter 11 case.

Dennis L. Land Carla M. Land v. Jerry L. Jensen, United States Trustee · filed 1993-05-18(b)(1)

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (bankruptcy court may hear and determine all cases under Title 11).

Section 157 governs whether a bankruptcy court may hear and determine a proceeding or must hear and report it; that distinction does not determine whether the court has jurisdiction.

Chadwick Bay Hotel Associates, Inc. v. City of Dunkirk (In Re Chadwick Bay Hotel Associates) · filed 1995-02-27

The questions the City asks are (1) whether the ease is here to hear and determine, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), or to hear and report, 28 U.S.C. § 157(e); and (2) if the latter, then is the matter appropriate for mandatory abstention, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), discretionary abstention, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), or withdrawal of the reference in light of the jury demand, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The issue of who should “decide” this matter is not jurisdictional.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court, which then has jurisdiction over the referred case unless the district court withdraws the reference.

Kashani v. Fulton (In Re Kashani) · filed 1995-12-21(a)

While it is true that 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) does allow the district court to refer jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court, both courts cannot concurrently preside over the same aspects of the case. Once the district court refers the ease to the bankruptcy court, unless the district court withdraws that reference, in whole or in part pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), the case is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

A party seeking to have a bankruptcy judge handle a lawsuit already pending in district court must ask the district court to refer it.

Mitchell v. Fukuoka Daiei Hawks Baseball Club (In Re Mitchell) · filed 1997-05-30(a)

This Court holds that the proper procedure for a party to use to request'a district court to transfer a lawsuit pending in that district court to a bankruptcy judge of the same district is for the party seeking the transfer to move the district court to refer that lawsuit to the bankruptcy court for further handling, if there is some reason why it would make sense to have the bankruptcy court take over further handling of the lawsuit from the district court.

Section 157(a) allows a bankruptcy court to exercise referred jurisdiction only over matters within the district court’s jurisdiction.

Perkins v. United States (In Re Perkins) · filed 1997-10-10(a)

We agree with the Debtor that this Court’s jurisdiction flows from that of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and the General Order of Reference entered in this District. However, the failure of the Debtor to file a claim with the IRS setting forth the specific fact that entitles her to a refund of the 1993 earned credit, leaves a district court without subject matter jurisdiction. It follows that if a district court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a particular matter, then neither can this Court.

Section 157(a) permits a reference under which bankruptcy courts exercise district court power in bankruptcy cases, including the power to tax costs.

D&B Countryside, L.L.C. v. Newell (In Re D&B Countryside, L.L.C.) · filed 1998-02-09(a)

While under 28 U.S.C. § 451, a bankruptcy court is not specifically designated as a "court of the United States,” bankruptcy courts are a unit of the district codrt in each judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 151 and exercise the power of the district court in bankruptcy cases by virtue of the reference provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Accordingly, bankruptcy judges and clerks may tax costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings within its § 1334(b) jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court.

Seale v. Home Cable Concepts, Inc. (In Re Best Reception Systems, Inc.) · filed 1998-04-06(a)

In addition to the bankruptcy case itself, 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(a) empowers the district court to refer to the bankruptcy court only those proceedings over which the district court has acquired jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1334(b).

Section 157(a) permits referral to a bankruptcy court only of cases and proceedings within the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Cassirer v. Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Schick) · filed 1998-08-24(a)

I note that the power to refer cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy court, granted under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), is limited to the cases and proceedings falling within the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants the authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to the district court alone.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges without divesting the district court of jurisdiction.

Lester v. United States · filed 2000-03-02(a)

This blanket referral is one that is common to most district courts. It is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), providing that the district court may refer “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11” to the district’s bankruptcy judges. While it is clear that this referral confers jurisdiction over certain bankruptcy matters on the bankruptcy court, a unit of the district court, we find no authority which states that this referral divests the district court of jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to hear and determine core proceedings arising under or arising in a title 11 case and enter final judgments.

U.S. Brass Corp. v. Travelers Insurance Group, Inc. · filed 2002-07-31(b)(1)

Thus, if a matter within the broad scope of § 1334(b) satisfies the more precise notion of a core proceeding, § 157 authorizes the bankruptcy court to decide the matter and enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(1) gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over core proceedings arising under or in a case under title 11.

George v. City of Morro Bay (In re George) · filed 2002-08-15(b)(1)

The bankruptcy court has complete jurisdiction over "all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11." 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1); In re George, 1999 WL 387070, at *1.

A referral under § 157(a) does not divest a district court of jurisdiction it had before the referral.

Dulworth v. U.S. Office Products Co. (In Re U.S. Office Products Co. Securities Litigation) · filed 2004-08-03(a)

Because this jurisdiction could not be divested by the Plan and Order’s referral clause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, this court retains jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 157 does not give bankruptcy judges authority to waive filing fees for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis.

Countryman v. Prue · filed 2006-04-03

Section 157 makes no mention of the right to waive fees, so any authority to do so would be implied from a general grant of authority. ... Perhaps Congress should vest the bankruptcy court with such authority, but it hasn’t done so.

Section 157(b) defines the scope of a bankruptcy court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction granted to the district court under § 1334; it does not independently confer subject-matter jurisdiction.

In Re RNI Wind Down Corp. · filed 2006-08-23(b)

Importantly, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) is not an independent basis for conferring subject-matter jurisdiction to a bankruptcy court. Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) delineates the scope of the bankruptcy court’s power to exercise the subject-matter jurisdiction granted to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157 permits district courts to refer § 1334 matters to bankruptcy courts and governs the bankruptcy court’s authority to act once subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Equipment Finders Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (In re Equipment Finders Inc.) · filed 2012-06-12

28 U.S.C. § 157 then authorizes district courts to refer cases and proceedings falling within § 1334(a) and (b) to the bankruptcy courts. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). While subject matter jurisdiction is determined by § 1334, § 157(b) and (c) determines the bankruptcy court’s authority to act once jurisdiction is established.

Section 157(b) does not itself give a bankruptcy court constitutional authority to adjudicate state law issues.

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Orcutt · filed 2014-02-28(b)

GMAC is correct that § 157(b) cannot confer constitutional authority to adjudicate state law issues.

An objection to a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter a final judgment may be waived if it is first raised on appeal.

Green v. Unaatuq, LLC (In re Catholic Bishop) · filed 2015-02-12(b)(1)

Stacey and Mary have waived their right to object to the bankruptcy court’s authority. ... Because Stacey and Mary did not object to the bankruptcy court’s authority prior to this appeal, they have waived their right to do so.

Section 157 governs referrals to bankruptcy judges; failure to follow a referral order does not deprive a district court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Houck v. Substitute Trustee Services · filed 2015-07-01

But nowhere in the text of § 157 is there any indication that the provision is jurisdictional, as the amicus claims.

A standing order of reference under § 157(a) does not prevent the district court from deciding whether an action before it is excepted from the bankruptcy automatic stay.

United States v. Vanguard Healthcare, LLC · filed 2017-03-13(a)

Even though there is a standing order of reference in this district in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), this court is vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all bankruptcy cases and original and concurrent jurisdiction over all civil proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(d) supports denying referral to a bankruptcy court when resolving the claims requires consideration of federal laws outside the Bankruptcy Code that regulate activities affecting interstate commerce.

Reynolds v. Behrman Capital IV L.P. · filed 2018-09-06(d)

Although the court has already found that the claims over which it has jurisdiction do not implicate a substantial and disputed question of federal law, the court agrees with Defendants that resolution of those claims will require at least some consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal law. ... Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Reynolds' request to refer the claims to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) makes a bankruptcy court’s referred jurisdiction derivative of the district court’s jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters.

Wmi Liquidating Trust v. Bozzuti (In re Wash. Mut., Inc.) · filed 2019-02-01(a)

The Court's jurisdiction is derivative of the District Court's jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. ... Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review or modify the FDIC's determination.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy proceedings to a bankruptcy court, but the reference does not give the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction over a tax dispute.

Joseph Yerushalmi · filed 2019-06-05(a)

As such, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and the standing order of reference in this district, this Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the outstanding tax dispute.

Section 157 does not permit referral of a post-discharge FDCPA claim that cannot affect the bankruptcy estate.

Cave v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-12-06(b)(1)

Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim asserted against Dyck-O’Neal for debt-collection practices that took place after the discharge order was entered is not “related to” Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding for purposes of § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(a) limits bankruptcy court jurisdiction to matters that district courts may refer under that provision; it does not authorize referral of supplemental claims outside those categories.

Leo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2021-01-13(a)

But that argument ignores 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) which is the exclusive conduit of all bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy and related cases to a bankruptcy court.

Curtis v. Awbrey · filed 2022-11-21(a)

Section 157 allows a district court to “refer” all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter.

Section 157 lets district courts refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges and limits bankruptcy court authority based on whether proceedings are core or non-core.

In Re: Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans · filed 2023-07-28

Section 157, in addition to authorizing referral to the bankruptcy court, outlines the scope of the bankruptcy court’s powers once the district court has referred a case or proceeding, but it does not establish an independent basis for jurisdiction beyond § 1334.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) authorizes the bankruptcy court to enter orders concerning the use of bankruptcy estate property.

In re: Salem · filed 2017-12-14(b)(2)(A)

The Bankruptcy Court is statutorily authorized to enter orders concerning the use of property of the bankruptcy estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to decide core bankruptcy matters, including lease rejection and requests for relief from a bankruptcy sale order.

45 John Ny, LLC v. HS 45 John LLC (In re HS 45 John LLC) · filed 2018-02-09(b)(1)

Second, this Court was acting within its jurisdiction. ... At the Rejection Hearing, this Court ruled on issues well within its competence, namely on a debtor's request to terminate or reject a lease under the terms of a contract and Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and on a party's request to seek relief from a Section 363 sale under FRCP 60(b).

Section 157 defines the bankruptcy matters a bankruptcy court may hear and determine; it does not authorize criminal proceedings.

Jean Michel LeTennier, Sr. · filed 2024-04-02(a)-(b)

To the extent that Debtor is asking this Court to enforce these provisions of federal law, bankruptcy courts do not have the power to investigate crimes and do not have jurisdiction over criminal proceedings. ... It may hear and determine cases filed under title 11, cases arising under title 11, and/or cases arising in or related to a case under title 11.

A party that fails to object to the absence of a core-proceeding determination under § 157(b)(3) may waive the requirement that the bankruptcy court make one.

In re Johnson · filed 1992-03-26(b)(3)

By failing to object to the lack of a jurisdictional determination under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), and acquiescing to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to enter dispositive orders on December 21, 1987 and December 20, 1989, Canal and RED waived any requirement the bankruptcy court had to make a determination of its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(3) requires a timely motion for a core proceeding determination; a party that waits until after the bankruptcy judge’s final determination waives its right to an explicit finding.

Gravel & Shea v. Vermont National Bank · filed 1993-10-27(b)(3)

The provision requires that a party’s motion be timely and therefore a party’s failure to raise the issue before the bankruptcy judge’s final determination waives the right to have an explicit § 157(b)(3) finding made by the bankruptcy judge and also waives the right to raise the absence of such a finding at a later stage of the proceedings.

Section 157(b)(3) assigns the bankruptcy judge the determination whether a proceeding is core or otherwise related to a bankruptcy case.

Rutherford v. Money Mortgage Corp. of America (In re Premiere Holdings of Texas, L.P.) · filed 2002-05-06(b)(3)

Ostensibly for this very reason, Congress elected to vest the determination of whether a proceeding is core or non-core to the bankruptcy courts under § 157(b)(3). In light of this clear statutory mandate, as well as supporting Fifth Circuit case law and Local Bankruptcy Rule 5011, the Court concludes that it would be inappropriate to withdraw the reference over the instant adversary proceeding without first procuring a recommendation from the bankruptcy judge, who is eminently qualified and skilled in making such determinations.

Section 157’s core proceeding determination follows the determination of bankruptcy jurisdiction and does not affect whether removal is proper.

National Retail Development Partners I, LLC v. Maness (In Re Mortgages Ltd.) · filed 2008-12-11

But determination of the core nature of this proceeding has nothing to do with bankruptcy jurisdiction. To the contrary, determination of the core nature becomes appropriate only after existence of bankruptcy jurisdiction has been determined.

Section 157(b)(3) allows a bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core at any time during the proceeding, including on its own motion.

Antioch Co. Litigation Trust v. Morgan (In Re Antioch Co.) · filed 2010-05-26(b)(3)

The core proceeding determination can be made at any time during a proceeding and may be raised by the bankruptcy court on its own motion.

A party may waive an argument about whether a claim is a core or noncore proceeding under § 157.

Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif · filed 2013-08-21

Unlike the murky issue of waiver surrounding the bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority, it is clear that a party can waive an argument concerning the core/noncore status of a claim under § 157.

A party may waive an objection to a bankruptcy court’s full adjudicative authority by participating in the proceeding and failing to object in time.

Kingdom Fresh Produce v. Bexar County (In re Delta Produce, LP) · filed 2013-09-27(b)(3)

Given that PACA Claimants had nearly nine months to object to the bankruptcy court’s exercise of judicial power and PACA Claimants availed themselves of that power, the Court finds that PACA Claimants waived any objection to the bankruptcy court exercising full adjudicative authority under § 157(b).

Section 157(c) allows a bankruptcy court to enter final orders with the parties’ consent without first deciding whether the proceeding is core or noncore.

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels, LLC · filed 2021-08-06(c)

... the Court does not need to reach whether this is a core or noncore proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), because Mission and S&S have consented to this Court entering final orders.

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core, on its own motion or upon a party’s motion.

AIRN Liquidation Trust Co., LLC v. Bank of America · filed 2025-12-31(b)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), this Court must determine whether this proceeding is core on its own motion or upon a motion by a party. Neither party has moved for such a determination. The Court directs the parties to meet and ... confer on whether this matter should be treated as a core or non-core proceeding and, if necessary, a briefing schedule to present the issue to the Court for determination.

Section 157(b)(3) permits a district court to make the initial determination whether a proceeding is core or non-core.

National Union Fire Insurance v. CMH Liquidating Trust (In re Community Memorial Hospital) · filed 2015-06-22(b)(3)

Therefore, the Court concludes that it can and should make the initial determination of whether this adversary proceeding is core or non-core.

Section 157(b)(3) directs bankruptcy judges to determine whether a proceeding is core; that determination defines their authority but does not transfer the district court’s jurisdictional decision to them.

McKinstry v. Sergent · filed 2011-01-12(b)(3)

Thus, § 157(b)(3) does not pass the jurisdictional buck to bankruptcy court. Rather, it merely instructs bankruptcy judges to decide whether a proceeding is “core” because that determination affects the “scope of [their] authority.”

Section 157(b)(3) permits a bankruptcy judge to determine on the judge’s own motion whether a proceeding is core.

Maurer v. Maurer (In Re Maurer) · filed 2002-01-02(b)(3)

Nevertheless, section 157(b)(3) also provides that a bankruptcy judge may determine this issue “on the judge’s own motion.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats matters involving rights derived exclusively from the Bankruptcy Code as core proceedings.

In Re Hemphill Bus Sales, Inc. · filed 2001-03-22(b)(2)

Moreover, matters involving rights exclusively derived from the Bankruptcy Code are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to decide a core proceeding even when its decision affects issues of nonbankruptcy law.

Hickman v. BWC State Ins. Fund (In re Hickman) · filed 2001-03-01(b)(1)

Thus, a “core proceeding,” and therefore a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, is not circumscribed merely because issues involving non-bankruptcy law will be impacted by a decision rendered in the “core proceeding.”

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a core proceeding, including a proceeding to determine a debtor’s tax liability under § 505(a).

H.J. Wilson Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue of Massachusetts (In Re Service Merchandise Co.) · filed 2001-02-09(b)(1)

The courts have repeatedly held that the determination of a debtor’s tax liability under section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is a core proceeding. ... Likewise, this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats estimation of unliquidated contract claims as a core proceeding.

In Re Trident Shipworks, Inc. · filed 2000-03-10(b)(2)(B)

The estimation proceeding is clearly a “core” matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a U.S. Trustee’s adversary proceeding against a bankruptcy petition preparer as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Thomas Womack, Jr. v. U.S. Trustee · filed 2000-03-15(b)(2)(A)

We conclude that the Trustee’s adversary proceeding was a “core proceeding,” because it was a matter “concerning the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats a suit challenging a bankruptcy trustee’s criminal referral as a core proceeding when the referral arose from the trustee’s bankruptcy duties.

Kirk v. Hendon (In Re Heinsohn) · filed 2000-03-20(b)(2)

The Court agrees the action in this case was a core proceeding. ... Had there been no bankruptcy proceeding, the referral which Plaintiff contends was maliciously instituted, would not have taken place. The referral concerned bankruptcy fraud and was made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3057 concerning bankruptcy investigations. Thus the referral, on which Plaintiffs case turns, arises under the bankruptcy laws and would not exist independent of these laws. Accordingly, the proceeding is core.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats actions to turn over property of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

United States v. Luongo · filed 2000-04-03(b)(2)(E)

Adversary proceeding actions for turn over of property of a bankruptcy estate are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(B)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat a debtor’s state-law veil-piercing claim against nonbankruptcy defendants as a core proceeding.

BN1 Telecommunications, Inc. v. Lomaz (In Re BN1 Telecommunications, Inc.) · filed 2000-04-10(b)(1)

We cannot conclude that this basis for his liability was a core proceeding, as such a cause of action is not one "arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11." 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1); see Michigan Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Wolverine Radio Co., Inc. (In re Wolverine Radio Co.), 930 F.2d 1132, 1144 (6th Cir.1991).

Section 157(b) requires each cause of action to be analyzed separately to determine whether it is core or non-core.

Trefny v. Bear Stearns Securities Corp. · filed 1999-05-26(b)

Each separate cause of action is analyzed to determine whether that claim is core or non-core.

Section 157(b)(3) requires a bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core or non-core, even when the debtor has not properly alleged it.

Williams v. Gruber (In Re Williams) · filed 1996-03-28(b)(3)

While the pro se debtor has failed to properly allege jurisdiction or state whether this proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to Rule 7008, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, this Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and determine whether the matter is core or non-core, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(3) requires a timely motion to challenge whether a bankruptcy proceeding is core; an objection raised more than two years after the complaint is untimely.

Federation of Puerto Rican Organizations of Brownsville, Inc. v. Howe · filed 1993-07-15(b)(3)

Section 157 also provides that the bankruptcy judge shall determine, “on the judge’s own motion or on timely motion of a party, whether a proceeding is a core proceeding under this subsection or is a proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.” Although defendants argue before this court that this dispute is not a core proceeding, this objection raised more than two years after the complaint was filed cannot be construed as “timely.”

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core or non-core even when the complaint does not say.

Williams v. Piazza (In Re Williams) · filed 1992-06-26(b)(3)

While the pro se debtor has failed to properly allege jurisdiction or state whether this proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to Rule 7008, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, this Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and determine whether the matter is core or non-core, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(3) requires a bankruptcy judge to determine whether a proceeding is core; the court treated a party’s consent as supporting a core determination.

Aero-Fastener, Inc. v. Sierracin Corp. (In Re Aero-Fastener, Inc.) · filed 1994-12-30(b)(3)

Based on that consent and in accordance with § 157(b)(3), the Court hereby makes an explicit determination that it has “core” jurisdiction over Count II pursuant to § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) covers proceedings affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings.

Dorfman v. Moorhous (In Re Moorhous) · filed 1995-04-06(b)(2)(O)

Although the Court initially had some concern as to whether — -as alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer — the pleaded causes of action actually constitute “core” proceedings within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), the Court concludes that the issues fairly fall within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) (“other proceedings affecting * * * the adjustment of the debtor-creditor * * * relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims.”).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a tort claim a core proceeding merely because it affects the parties' relationship; the claim must affect the adjustment of their debtor-creditor relationship.

Community Bank of Homestead v. Boone · filed 1995-05-23(b)(2)(O)

Although the tort claim has an effect on the relationship between the Boones and the Bank, it does not affect the contracts that give rise to their debtor-creditor relationship. Thus, it does not "adjust" the debtor-creditor relationship in any way.

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy judge to determine whether a proceeding is core or noncore and permits a party to timely contest that classification.

Hunt v. HEB Federal Credit Union (In re Hunt) · filed 1997-07-24(b)(3)

Section 157(b)(3) expressly permits this determination to be made either on the court’s own initiative or “on timely motion of a party.” ... For all of the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the motion to amend filed by Parkway ought to be granted for the limited purpose of permitting Parkway to contest the core nature of these proceedings, and to affirmatively assert its withdrawal of its consent to the entry of judgment by this court in the event that the court ultimately determines these to be noncore proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) and (I) treats the debtor’s claims concerning an allegedly improper reaffirmation agreement and recovery of payments as a core proceeding.

Wiley v. Mason (In Re Wiley) · filed 1998-08-28(b)(2)(G) and (I)

Jurisdiction also arises in and under Title 11 U.S.C. over Wiley's claim to recover payments and punitive damages assertedly recoverable because the agreement was never filed with our Court Clerk as required by statute, or for any improper solicitation of payments. To that extent, the case presents a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (I).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and enter final judgments in a core proceeding involving a claim that the estate must reimburse expenses incurred to complete the debtor’s jobs.

Insulation Distributors, Inc. v. Waters (In re Waters Asbestos & Supply Co.) · filed 1998-08-27(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

As such, whether Defendants are entitled to allowance of their claim against Trustee will be governed by the provisions of Title 11. Jurisdiction therefore exists under Section 1334(b), this is a “core proceeding”, and this Court may hear, determine, and enter appropriate final orders and judgments in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A),(O).

Section 157(b)(2) treats allegations of impropriety in bankruptcy sales as core proceedings.

Allnutt v. Associates Leasing, Inc. (In Re Allnutt) · filed 1998-03-20(b)(2)(A), (N), (O)

Allegations of impropriety in the conduct of bankruptcy sales are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treat a declaratory action concerning estate insurance policies as core when it has a strong nexus to the debtor’s reorganization.

United States Lines, Inc. v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n (In Re United States Lines, I · filed 1994-07-05(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The strong nexus that exists between the Trust’s adversary proceeding and the general reor-ganizational process renders this declaratory action core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2) treats approval of a compromise of estate claims as a core proceeding even when the underlying suit includes core and non-core matters and defendants demand a jury trial.

In Re Munford, Inc. · filed 1993-12-21(b)(2)

Although the underlying suit involves core and non-core matters and defendants have demanded a jury trial, the compromise and settlement of claims of the estate is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to treat a request for a preliminary injunction as a core proceeding when it seeks to prevent harm to estate assets and reorganization prospects.

Carabetta Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Asbury Park (In Re Carabetta Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1993-12-30(b)(2)

The plaintiffs have properly invoked this court’s core jurisdiction to seek a preliminary injunction to prevent that harm to the estate and preserve the debtor’s prospects of achieving reorganization.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) treats proceedings affecting the allowance of claims and enforcement of issues reserved under a bankruptcy plan as core proceedings.

In Re Pettibone Corp. · filed 1994-01-03(b)(2)(A) and (B)

The resolution of these matters affects allowance of claims and enforcement of Plan issues reserved to this Court. Accordingly, they are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat a proceeding as core when its claims invoke no substantive bankruptcy right and could be asserted independently of the bankruptcy case.

Venn v. Kinjite Motors, Inc. (In Re WMR Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1994-01-13(b)(1)

Thus, since the causes of action asserted by plaintiff in the instant proceeding are not based on substantive rights created under the bankruptcy code and could have been asserted independently of the bankruptcy case, the proceeding is not a core proceeding.

A motion to disqualify a bankruptcy judge from hearing a bankruptcy case is a core proceeding because it can arise only in a bankruptcy case referred by the district court.

In Re Betts · filed 1994-01-18(b)(2)

A motion to disqualify a bankruptcy judge from hearing a bankruptcy case would only arise in a bankruptcy case that has been referred by the district court. Thus, the Court rejects the Debtor’s argument that the motion to disqualify is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (E) treats a proceeding to determine whether property belongs to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Manges v. Atlas (In Re Duval County Ranch Co.) · filed 1994-01-25(b)(2)(A), (E)

A proceeding to determine what constitutes property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541 is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (E).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a determination of whether debts arising from a divorce are dischargeable as a core proceeding.

Mills v. Mills (In Re Mills) · filed 1994-01-26(b)(2)(I)

In this case, the issue is whether debts arising in a divorce action are dischargeable in bankruptcy. Since this determination is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), mandatory abstention is inapplicable.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an action to determine the validity of a mortgage lien as a core proceeding even when the action is grounded in state law.

RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter) · filed 1994-02-08(b)(2)

The Bankruptcy Court properly concluded that the action, though grounded in state law, was within bankruptcy subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and was a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 treats a proceeding that invokes a substantive right provided by Title 11 as a core proceeding.

Generes v. Morrell (In Re Generes) · filed 1994-03-15

As a preliminary matter, this Court finds that the proceedings before the bankruptcy court were a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157. A proceeding is “core” if it invokes a substantive right provided by Title 11.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a proceeding as core when it neither arises under Title 11 nor arises in a Title 11 case and is not among the listed proceedings.

Lux v. Spotswood Construction Loans · filed 1994-04-11(b)(2)

Therefore, since the proceeding does not “arise under” Title 11, does not “arise in” a case under Title 11, and is not one of the specifically enumerated proceeding in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), it is not a core proceeding for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 157 treats a prepetition contract action based on nonbankruptcy law as noncore when it does not invoke a bankruptcy right and could arise outside bankruptcy.

Arid Waterproofing, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, Department of General Services (In Re Arid Waterproofing, Inc.) · filed 1994-05-03(b)(2)

This adversary proceeding is simply a pre-petition contract action against the state, based upon nonbankruptcy law, and is clearly noncore.

State law foreclosure accounting, surplus, and attorney fee issues were noncore and unrelated to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Benson v. Empire State Bank · filed 1994-05-03(a)

Whether the bank provided an adequate accounting to the Bensons, whether any surplus existed from the foreclosure sale, and whether the bank improperly computed attorney fees are issues involving Minnesota law and are thus noneore matters, unrelated to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers claims concerning conduct integral to the administration of a bankruptcy estate, even when the claims arise under state law.

Lorence v. Does 1 Through 50 (In Re Diversified Contract Services, Inc.) · filed 1994-05-11(b)(2)(A)

The Court concludes that this proceeding is properly characterized as a proceeding concerning the administration of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The claims alleged in the Complaint concern conduct integrally related to the administration of the chapter 11 case.

Section 157 allows a bankruptcy court that finds a debt nondischargeable to determine the amount of the underlying claim as a core matter.

Automotive Financial Services, Inc. v. Youngblood (In Re Youngblood) · filed 1994-05-19(b)(2)

Once a court has determined a debt to be nondischargeable, the court may proceed to determine the merits of the underlying claims, including the amount of the debt which is also a core matter.

A contractual subordination dispute may be a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

In Re Best Products Co., Inc. · filed 1994-05-25(b)(2)

I too find that the resolution of this contractual subordination dispute is core.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a dispute between law firms over already paid fees a core proceeding when the dispute does not affect the bankruptcy estate.

In Re General Development Corp. · filed 1994-06-09(b)(2)

The Court holds that the instant dispute does not present a core proceeding and that for the reasons set forth below the State Court is the proper forum to decide this dispute.

Section 157(b)(2) lists core proceedings without limiting them to the matters expressly named, so a § 505 tax determination is a core proceeding.

United States v. Walters (In Re Walters) · filed 1994-06-27(b)(2)

The Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this Contested Matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and it is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). This is the case even though no express reference to § 505 is found in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The list of matters set out in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) is not exclusive based on the definition of the word “include” as not being limiting.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a debtor’s fraud claim a core proceeding merely because a recovery could enlarge the bankruptcy estate.

Durso Supermarkets, Inc. v. D'Urso (In Re Durso Supermarkets, Inc.) · filed 1994-07-07(b)(2)(O)

Nor is the Action “core” under § 157(b)(2)(0). DSI’s claim of fraud may, if successful, enlarge the estate; however, that fact without more does not affect “the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship”.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) authorizes a bankruptcy court to hear and determine as a core proceeding a suit to enforce a debtor's lease obligation to discharge a mechanic's lien.

In Re Lionel Corporation · filed 1994-07-12(b)(2)(G)

The Owners' suit against Lionel sought to enforce Lionel's obligation under the lease to cause any mechanic's lien filed against the premises to be discharged by payment, deposit, bond, order of court, or otherwise. As such, it was a core proceeding which the bankruptcy court was authorized to hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) authorizes a bankruptcy court to hear and determine as a core proceeding a suit to enforce a debtor’s lease obligation to discharge a mechanic’s lien.

Klein v. Civale & Trovato, Inc. · filed 1994-07-12(b)(2)(G)

The Owners’ suit against Lionel sought to enforce Lionel’s obligation under the lease to cause any mechanic’s lien filed against the premises to be discharged by payment, deposit, bond, order of court, or otherwise. As such, it was a core proceeding which the bankruptcy court was authorized to hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) give bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction over claims that challenge the terms of a confirmed plan.

Artra Group, Inc. v. Salomon Bros. Holding Co. (In Re Emerald Acquisition Corp.) · filed 1994-07-15(b)(2)(A), (O)

Accordingly, since bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction under §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) to enforce the terms of a confirmed plan, the Valuation Claims are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings to enforce a bankruptcy plan and prior court orders as core proceedings.

Dicola v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n (In Re Prudential Lines, Inc.) · filed 1994-07-29(b)(2)(A)

But because they involved enforcement of the so ordered stipulation of settlement, the Plan, and the prior summary judgment decision of the bankruptcy court, the proceedings are core.

A dispute over rights established by a bankruptcy court’s sale order falls within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

Comco Associates v. Faraldi Food Industries, Ltd. · filed 1994-08-05(b)(2)

The dispute between Comeo and Stad is inextricably linked to the bankruptcy court’s Sale Order. That Order set forth the rights Comeo could assert vis-a-vis Stad and clearly indicated that Comeo could not hold Stad liable for any of Faraldi’s defaults. ... Thus, this dispute falls squarely within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats deciding whether to allow a claim against estate property as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may address sua sponte.

In re Graves · filed 1994-08-19(b)(2)(B)

Fleet claims a bankruptcy court can only raise certain issues sua sponte. We find no merit in this position. Determining whether or not to allow a claim against the property of the estate is a core proceeding expressly assigned to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction over a proposed release related to plan confirmation and estate administration.

In Re Envirodyne Industries, Inc. · filed 1994-09-26(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(L)

Therefore, the Limited Release Motion is a matter relating to the confirmation of a plan and the administration of the estate over which this court has core jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) treats a proceeding involving the same issues as an objection to a creditor’s proof of claim as a core proceeding.

Peoples State Bank & Trust Co. v. Krug (In re Krug) · filed 1994-09-29(b)(1)

The Court finds that this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding and therefore mandatory abstention is not required. This adversary proceeding involves the same issues necessary to decide the debtor’s objection to the' Bank’s Proof of Claim filed in the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a request to determine tax liability as a core proceeding when it amounts to an objection to claims against the estate.

Holly's, Inc. v. City of Kentwood (In Re Holly's, Inc.) · filed 1994-09-30(b)(2)(B)

In addition, the Debtor’s request for relief under § 505(a) essentially amounts to an objection to Kentwood’s tax claims; 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) provides that “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate” are core proceedings. ... Therefore, this court concludes that the Debtor’s request, pursuant to § 505(a), for a determination of its 1989 through 1992 tax liability to Kentwood is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a contempt proceeding arising from a core bankruptcy proceeding as itself core.

Monarch Life Insurance v. Ropes & Gray · filed 1994-10-05(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats turnover of estate property and matters concerning estate administration as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final orders.

In Re Babbidge · filed 1994-10-06(b)(2)(A), (E)

This is a core proceeding because the original order required him to “turn over property of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Additionally, the other orders requiring Opdahl to provide partnership records and an accounting dealt with a matter “concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). Therefore, the court has jurisdiction over this matter and may enter final orders, including civil contempt orders, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E).

A debtor’s contract claim is noncore when the claimed proceeds would become property of the estate only if the debtor prevails.

Burger Boys, Inc. v. South Street Seaport Ltd. Partnership (In Re Burger Boys, Inc.) · filed 1994-12-15(b)

Moreover, where, as here, the “property of the estate” (the breach proceeds and Burger Boys’ rights under the lease) is conditional upon the debtor prevailing in the adversary proceeding, courts have consistently held the adversary proceeding is noneore.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a sanctions proceeding as core when the alleged conduct occurred during a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re VIII South Michigan Associates · filed 1994-12-16(b)(2)(A)

This matter is a core proceeding, as “[proceedings for sanctions are core proceedings when the sanctioned conduct occurs in the course of a core proceeding.” ... The “settlement clearly concerned the administration of the estate [see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) ], and was thus a core proceeding for Section 157 purposes.”

Section 157 treats breach-of-contract actions as noncore proceedings, including disputed contract claims styled as turnover claims.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Gurga (In Re Gurga) · filed 1994-12-30

Despite Source’s attempts to frame the issues herein as core, we find that the claims are noncore. ... Breach of contract actions are noncore claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a proceeding arising from postpetition transactions to be treated as core even when it is not specifically listed among the core proceedings.

Parke Imperial Canton, Ltd. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp. (In Re Parke Imperial Canton, Ltd.) · filed 1994-12-08(b)(2)

There is no specific identification of the present proceeding in the non-exclusive listing of core actions in Section 157(b)(2). In addition, the cause of action would continue to exist independent of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, the Debt- or’s cause of action relates to transactions that occurred after it filed its bankruptcy case. A significant number of courts have concluded that causes of action which arose post-petition are core because they arose “in a case.” ... Thus, the court concludes that the Debtor’s complaint is a core proceeding and therefore, mandatory abstention is not applicable.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order on a sanctions motion concerning counsel’s conduct that impeded administration of an adversary case.

Volpert v. Ellis (In Re Volpert) · filed 1995-01-18(b)

As discussed below, Ellis’s conduct as counsel for the debtor impeded administration of the Adversary case. Thus, the matter of sanctions related to that conduct clearly constitutes a core proceeding in which this Court is authorized to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies a claim seeking redress for a violation of the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Winchester v. Commodity Credit Corp. (In Re Winchester) · filed 1995-01-23(b)(2)

That portion of the plaintiffs complaint seeking redress for the defendants’ violation of the automatic stay is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding that affects liquidation of estate assets as a core proceeding.

Tom Lange Co. v. Kornblum & Co. (In Re Kornblum & Co.) · filed 1995-01-31(b)(2)

The instant adversary proceeding, which will clearly affect the liquidation of estate assets, is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a trustee’s preference recovery proceeding as a core proceeding.

Floyd v. Shindler (In re Rodriguez) · filed 1995-02-16(b)(2)(A) and (F)

Shindler also denies that this matter is a core proceeding and to the extent that such is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 157, Shindler claims that such statute is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Court determines that it has jurisdiction over this proceeding and it is a core proceeding.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a bankruptcy case.

Schechter v. Illinois, Department of Revenue (In Re Markos Gurnee Partnership) · filed 1995-04-27(b)(1), (b)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the proceeding does so arise, and that it is a “core proceeding” in which, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A), a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment.

Section 157 treats confirmation proceedings and civil contempt proceedings arising from them as core matters, allowing the bankruptcy court to enter a final contempt order.

In Re Krypton Broadcasting of Ft. Pierce, Inc. · filed 1995-05-03(b)(2)(A), (L)

A confirmation hearing and confirmation order are core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (L). Civil contempt proceedings arising out of core matters are themselves core matters. ... Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to enter a final contempt order on the Motion for Sanctions.

Section 157(b)(2) leaves a foreclosure and related proceedings outside core jurisdiction when their connection to bankruptcy is insufficient.

Balcor/Morristown Ltd. Partnership v. Vector Whippany Associates · filed 1995-05-04(b)(2)

Despite the closeness of the question, the Court believes that the foreclosure and the related proceedings are not core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding listed as an asset of a Chapter 13 estate as a core proceeding concerning estate administration and affecting liquidation of estate assets.

Love v. Love (In Re Love) · filed 1995-05-05(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

This adversary proceeding was listed as an asset of Plaintiffs Chapter 13 case. Thus, it is both a matter concerning the administration of the estate, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), as well as a proceeding affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to enforce and construe a bankruptcy court’s confirmation order as a core proceeding.

Texaco Inc. v. Sanders (In Re Texaco Inc.) · filed 1995-05-15(b)(2)

There can be no question that a proceeding such as this, to enforce and construe a confirmation order issued by this Court in this case, constitutes a proceeding “arising in or related to a ease under title 11.” I agree with the authority cited above and hold that this is a core proceeding under section 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dischargeability proceeding, including determination of the claim’s dollar value, as a core proceeding.

Neumann v. Neumann (In re Neumann) · filed 1995-05-15(b)(2)

It is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (I), and (J), and includes this Court’s determination of the dollar value of a claim that was the subject of a complaint to determine its dischargeability.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make state-law contract and tort claims core proceedings merely because they are framed as an objection to a creditor’s claim.

Lacy v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In Re Lacy) · filed 1995-06-20(b)(2)

Although framed as an objection to allowance of the F.D.I.C.’s claim, the Complaint raises only state law claims. All of the claims asserted by the Reorganized Debtor against the F.D.I.C. could be raised in a state court action to determine the parties’ respective rights and obligations with regard to the Cuesta Way property. Furthermore, all of the claims asserted by the Reorganized Debtor arise out of pre-petition loan agreements between the Debtor and the F.D.I.C., and are state law contract and tort claims, specifically, breach of contract and bad faith. Thus, the elements of the Complaint are not dependent upon the Bankruptcy Code for their existence. Therefore, the within case is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a dispute over a debtor’s insurance policy as a core proceeding when its resolution affects estate property essential to reorganization.

In Re Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc. · filed 1995-06-22(b)(2)(O)

Thus, because this dispute involves property of the estate which is an essential part of Spectrum’s reorganization, this Court finds that the instant matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0 ).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a Bankruptcy Code § 510(a) contractual subordination dispute as a core proceeding when it concerns the administration and distribution of the bankruptcy estate.

Fourth Branch Associates v. Mohawk Paper Mills, Inc. (In Re Kings Falls Power Corp.) · filed 1995-06-26(b)(2)

Resolving subordination disputes is part of the process of ordering the estate for purposes of distribution and is integral to the restructuring of debtor-creditor and creditor-creditor relations. ... For the reasons set forth above, the nature of this proceeding goes to the core of the bankruptcy process.

Section 157 treats an adversary proceeding against a creditor for violating the automatic stay as a core proceeding arising in or under Title 11.

Skaggs v. Fifth Third Bank of Northern Kentucky (In Re Skaggs) · filed 1995-06-26(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding since an action against a creditor for violation of the automatic stay is one “arising in” or “arising under” Title 11 of the United States Code. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (E), (G) and (0).

Section 157 treats a trustee’s action to recover unauthorized fees for bankruptcy legal assistance and seek an injunction as a core proceeding on which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Matter of Swift · filed 1995-08-09(b)(2)(A), (O)

The dispute presented by the Trustee's complaint indeed constitutes a "core" bankruptcy proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (O). As such, it forms a matter squarely within the confines of derivative bankruptcy jurisdiction, and a dispute upon which this Court may enter a final order of adjudication. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), (b)(1).

Section 157 treats an action to recover unauthorized compensation for bankruptcy legal services as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Walton v. Watts (In re Swift) · filed 1995-08-09(b)(2)

The dispute presented by the Trustee’s complaint indeed constitutes a “core” bankruptcy proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (0). As such, it forms a matter squarely within the confines of derivative bankruptcy jurisdiction, and a dispute upon which this Court may enter a final order of adjudication.

Section 157(b)(2) excludes from core proceedings a claim that invokes no substantive right under Title 11 and could arise outside bankruptcy.

In the Matter of Eva F. Berglund and Evert E. Berglund, Debtors Appeal of Evert E. Berglund and Mary K. Berglund · filed 1995-08-22(b)(2)

This case is not part of the core bankruptcy proceeding because it does not invoke a substantive right granted under Title 11, and because it is not a proceeding that could arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a Chapter 11 debtor’s claim for breach of a post-petition contract as a core proceeding when the claim is essential to administering the estate.

LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. v. Thomson-CSF, S.A. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1995-08-23(b)(2)(A)

Claims by a chapter 11 debtor for breach of a post-petition contract are essential to the “administration of the estate” and, therefore, are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats a debtor’s contribution claim as a core proceeding when the claim has a substantial nexus to administration of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re: Peter A. Morabito, Debtor. William J. Friedman v. Morabito · filed 1995-08-25(b)(1) & (2)

We find a sufficient nexus between the contribution action and Morabito's bankruptcy estate to consider the contribution action a core proceeding because his inability to pay a settlement on the $1.46 million judgment was the reason he filed for bankruptcy, and presumably recovery of the contribution amount represents a major asset of Morabito's bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats this dischargeability proceeding as core, permitting the bankruptcy court to decide the claim’s validity and amount as well as its dischargeability.

Rentrak Corp. v. Forbes (In Re Forbes) · filed 1995-09-12(b)(2)

This adversary proceeding represents a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Since this is a core proceeding, this Court has jurisdiction to adjudge the validity and amount of Rentrak’s claim against the Debtors, as well as that claim’s dischargeability.

Section 157(b)(1) treats a proceeding as core if it arises under title 11 or arises in a bankruptcy case; a proceeding cannot arise in the case if it is not even related to it.

Poplar Run Five Ltd. Partnership v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (In Re Poplar Run Five Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1995-10-03(b)(1)

To determine whether the proceeding at hand falls within our “core” jurisdiction, we must address whether the proceeding “arises under” title 11, or whether it otherwise “arises in” a case under title 11. ... For these reasons, we conclude that a proceeding cannot “arise in” a bankruptcy case when it does not fall within the definition of a “related to” proceeding, the type of proceeding that we consider next.

Section 157 treats enforcement of a contractual subordination agreement between creditors who filed proofs of claim as a core proceeding when it determines the priority of claims against the estate.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Best Products Co. (In re Best Products Co.) · filed 1995-10-10(b)(2)

To summarize, we hold that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over a core proceeding to enforce a contractual subordination agreement between parties that had filed proofs of claim against the Debtor’s estate.

Section 157 treats determinations of a lien’s validity or extent as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Dishong v. United States Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service (In Re Dishong) · filed 1995-10-23(b)(2)

Further, this Court finds this matter is a core proceeding specifically defined to allow “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.” Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). ... Because it is a core proceeding, this Court may enter a final judgment in this matter.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a debtor’s action to collect a disputed prepetition contract receivable a core proceeding, even when the receivable is the estate’s major asset.

Pisgah Contracting, Inc. v. Rosen (In Re Pisgah Contractors, Inc.) · filed 1995-11-02(b)(2)

Here, the major asset of the estate is this account receivable. The adversary proceeding was initiated to force the Rosens to pay the sum allegedly owed in connection with the contract. ... This adversary proceeding is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a state-law foreclosure action as a core proceeding.

Peoples State Bank & Trust Co. v. Krug (In Re Krug) · filed 1995-11-21(b)(2)

In ruling on the objection to claim, the Court has determined the amount of a foredosure judgment, but the Court is without authority to enter judgment. This Court's authority is limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the United States District Court for entry of judgment.

Section 157(b)(3) permits a bankruptcy court to determine that a claim based on § 525 is a core proceeding.

Morrow v. Torrance Bank (In Re Morrow) · filed 1995-11-22(b)(3)

As such, an action predicated upon § 525 — creating a right to be free from discrimination predicated upon one's status as a “bankrupt” or “debtor” or person associated with either — is "core". Notwithstanding Plaintiffs erroneous jurisdictional assertions, this Court is empowered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) to make its own determination as to whether a proceeding is "core”.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make an attorney disciplinary proceeding core when it addresses only professional misconduct, without affecting estate assets or debtor-creditor relationships.

In Re Hessinger & Associates · filed 1996-01-22(b)(2)(O)

The Miscellaneous ease was concerned solely with issue of the firm’s professional misconduct and addressed neither the assets of any bankruptcy estate nor the adjustment of debtor-creditor relations or the equity security holder relationship. Given this fact, the court cannot conclude that the Miscellaneous case properly can be defined as core under § 157(2)(0) or under any other subsection to § 157. It follows that the Miscellaneous case was a non-core proceeding, and that the court must conduct a de novo review of both the bankruptcy court’s findings of facts and its conclusions of law.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a debtor’s state-law tort claim against a non-creditor a core proceeding merely because the claim arose after the bankruptcy petition.

Weiner's, Inc. v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co. · filed 1996-01-24(b)(2)

However, I am unpersuaded that the fact that a claim arises post-petition can, without more, transform the claim into a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats disputes over compensation for a Chapter 11 trustee’s counsel as core proceedings concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Delta Petroleum (P.R.), Ltd. · filed 1996-01-31(b)(2)(A)

A dispute over compensation to be paid to the Chapter 11 Trustee’s former counsel is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O) classify motions to remand and motions for abstention as core proceedings.

Coleman v. First Family Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Coleman) · filed 1996-02-15(b)(2)(A), (B), (O)

The motions to remand are a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B) and (O). The motions for abstention are also a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over whether to vacate dismissal of a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

In Re Mercado-Jimenez · filed 1996-02-29(b)(2)(A)

A dispute over the bankruptcy court’s decision not to vacate an order dismissing a bankruptcy case is a core proceeding. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), “[c]ore proceedings include, but are not limited to ... matters concerning the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a claim concerning a trustee’s fiduciary duties because those duties arise under the Bankruptcy Code.

State of Ill., Dept. of Revenue v. Schechter · filed 1996-03-11(b)(1)

A claim for breach of fiduciary duty can only “arise” in a bankruptcy case and under the Bankruptcy Code since the fiduciary status of a trustee is created by the Code and his duties are described in the Code. ... Accordingly the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to hear this case as it arose out of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157 treats proceedings created by Title 11 or arising only in Title 11 cases as core proceedings.

In Re Turner · filed 1996-03-11

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157. A proceeding is core if it is created by Title 11 or only arises in Title 11 cases.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s insurance coverage claim arising after the bankruptcy petition as a core proceeding even when the policy predates the petition.

Hirsch v. London Steamship Owners' Mutual Life Insurance (In Re Seatrain Lines, Inc.) · filed 1996-03-25(b)(2)(A)

The insurance policies at issue here were executed pre-petition, but the estate’s cause of action accrued post-petition when the defendants refused the estate’s demand for defense and indemnification. I hold, therefore, that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding to prosecute an automatic stay violation as a core proceeding.

Divane v. a and C Elec. Co., Inc. · filed 1996-03-26(b)

But because the automatic stay is so integral to the very operation of the bankruptcy laws (see the earlier quotation from the legislative history of Section 362(a)), without question “a proceeding to prosecute a violation of the automatic stay is a core proceeding ...” (Budget Serv. Co. v. Better Homes of Va., Inc., 804 F.2d 289, 292 (4th Cir.1986); accord, In re McGee, 181 B.R. 307, 310 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1995)).

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat a charging lien dispute between a debtor’s creditor and a third party as a core proceeding when it involves no substantial right under title 11 and could arise outside bankruptcy.

In Re Gucci · filed 1996-03-26(b)(1)

This matter does not arise in or under Title 11 and is not a core proceeding. It does not involve a substantial right provided by Title 11 nor is it a proceeding that could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute involving a bank’s security interests and preferences as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Conrad v. Bank of America · filed 1996-04-09(b)(2)

Finally, this matter involves the Bank’s security interests and preferences and was unquestionably a “core proceeding” under bankruptcy law (see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)), and under any reading of federal law, had to be presented, if at all, in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make prepetition state-law contract, malpractice, and guaranty claims core proceedings merely because their outcome may affect the debtor’s estate.

Burke v. Donington, Karcher, Salmond, Ronan & Rainone, P.A. (In Re Donington, Karcher, Salmond, Ronan & Rainone, P.A.) · filed 1996-04-16(b)(2)

The Court therefore finds both the Burke Action and the Third-party Action to be entirely non-core matters related to a case arising under Title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an adversary proceeding about dischargeability as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Thompson v. Rodriguez (In Re Rodriguez) · filed 1996-05-15(b)(2)(B)

The bankruptcy court adversary hearing regarding the dischargeability of appellants’ debts was a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). The bankruptcy court was empowered to enter a final judgment on this issue, and the standard of review to be applied in the current appeal is identical to the standard used by circuit courts of appeal reviewing district court decisions: clearly erroneous review of factual findings and de novo review of legal conclusions.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over specific performance of a contract to sell estate property as a core proceeding.

Estancias La Ponderosa Development Corp. v. Harrington · filed 1996-05-13(b)(2)(N), (O)

A dispute over the Bankruptcy Court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs request that the Trustee be ordered to specifically perform the contract for the sale of some of the estate’s property is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an adversary proceeding over the discharge of a creditor’s fraud claim as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Corman v. Morgan (In Re Morgan) · filed 1996-06-17(b)(2)(B)

The bankruptcy court adversary hearing regarding the discharge of Corman’s fraud claim was a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). The bankruptcy court was empowered to enter a final judgment on this issue, and the standard of review to be applied in the current appeal is identical to the standard used by circuit courts of appeal reviewing district court decisions: clearly erroneous review of factual findings and de novo review of legal conclusions.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an injunction enabling estate administration, turnover of estate property, and orderly liquidation as a core proceeding.

Pipkin v. JVM Operating, L.C. · filed 1996-06-17(b)(2)

Since the injunction at issue was designed to and will enable proper administration of the estate, turnover of property belonging to the estate, and orderly liquidation of assets of the estate, the injunction matter is core. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), & (0).

Section 157(b) treats claims arising in a bankruptcy case and proceedings involving estate administration as core proceedings.

In Re Diamond Bar Estates No. 10, Debtor. Robert Erilane v. Victor F. Thompson Teresa Thompson Alex Labrie Richard Noke · filed 1996-06-19(b)

Therefore, Erilane's case is a core proceeding involving claims that arose in a case under title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); In re Harris Pine Mills, 44 F.3d 1431, 1435-36 (9th Cir.1995). Moreover, this proceeding involves administration of the partnership estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats an action to determine whether a debt is dischargeable as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Green v. Kennedy (In Re Green) · filed 1996-06-25(b)(2)(I)

Regardless, the contention has no merit. An action to determine whether a debt.is nondischargeable is core.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an action to recover assets allegedly transferred from a bankruptcy estate in violation of law and fiduciary duty as a core proceeding.

Shields v. Duggan (In Re Dartco, Inc.) · filed 1996-07-01(b)(2)

However, it is scarcely an expansive construction to read these provisions to encompass an action to recover assets transferred out of a bankruptcy estate, allegedly in violation of law and fiduciary duty.

Section 157 treats a proceeding as core if it invokes a right under title 11 or could arise only in bankruptcy; state-law insurance coverage disputes that can exist outside bankruptcy are non-core.

United States Brass Corp. v. California Union Insurance · filed 1996-07-10(b)(2)

Under the Wood test, “a proceeding is core under section 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.” ... Applying the Wood test to this bankruptcy appeal, it is clear that the four state proceedings are not core proceedings.

A fee petition arising from a bankruptcy proceeding may be classified as a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

In Re Merritt Yochum and Rose Marie Yochum, Debtors. United States of America v. Merritt Yochum and Rose Marie Yochum · filed 1996-07-16(b)(2)

Here, the right to attorneys’ fees does not exist independent of the bankruptcy proceeding, the resolution of this issue does not depend on state law, and the right to fees did not exist prior to the bankruptcy. Rather, it emanates from the bankruptcy itself. ... Accordingly, they should be classified as core proceedings.

Section 157 does not treat a dispute between creditors over non-estate property as a core proceeding.

Shepard v. United States, Department of the Treasury-Internal Revenue Service (In re Potomac Systems Engineering, Inc.) · filed 1996-08-29(b)(2)

The Court rejects plaintiffs’ arguments and finds that Count I of the complaint is not a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157. ... Disputes between a debtor’s creditors “over non-estate property” constitute non-core, unrelated cases over which the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a state-law third-party claim core merely because it could affect the amount available to creditors.

United Orient Bank v. Green (In Re Green) · filed 1996-09-20(b)(2)(A)

Green contends also that, as the outcome of his third-party action will affect the amount available for distribution to creditors, it concerns administration of the estate and therefore is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (1988). In fact, however, the outcome of his third-party action is only tangentially related to the size of the estate. ... Accordingly, in fight of the state law, non-bankruptcy nature of Green’s third-party complaint, that complaint is non-core.

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding as core if it arises from the Bankruptcy Code or is possible only in bankruptcy; a proceeding that can exist independently of bankruptcy is noncore.

Wilson v. ALFA Companies (In Re Wilson) · filed 1996-09-27(b)

A core proceeding is a cause of action arising out of the Bankruptcy Code itself, or which is only possible in the bankruptcy context even if state law impacts or is determinative of the decision. A noncore proceeding can exist independent of the bankruptcy case. A nonexclusive list of core proceedings is included in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).