28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157 identifies specified bankruptcy matters as core proceedings, including fraudulent conveyance proceedings and proceedings affecting debtor-creditor relationships.

Abondolo v. GGR Holbrook Medford, Inc. · filed 2002-08-15(b)(1)

Core proceedings include “matters concerning the administration of the estate,” “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate,” “orders to turn over property of the estate,” “proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances,” “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens,” and “other 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. § 157(b)(1)(A), (C), (E), (H), (K), (O). Matters concerning administration of the estate should be broadly interpreted.

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

Lilledahl v. Kibbee (In Re Kibbee) · filed 2002-08-27(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)(C) treats counterclaims by the bankruptcy estate against persons filing claims against the estate as core proceedings.

Warfield v. Navajo Nation (In Re Davis Chevrolet, Inc.) · filed 2002-08-29(b)(2)(C)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to section 157(b)(2)(C) (counterclaim by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate).

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

Hicks v. Homeq Servicing Corp. (In Re Hicks) · filed 2002-09-05(b)(2)(K)

Among the proceedings identified as core pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), are determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of hens. § 157(b)(K). Nevertheless, the Court does not agree with the argument advanced by Debtor that her claims under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, the TILA or for declaratory relief regarding the unconscionability or validity of Homeq’s mortgage are core proceedings.

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts authority to enter appropriate orders and judgments in core proceedings, while limiting that authority for non-core proceedings.

Luan Investment S.E. v. Franklin 145 Corp. (In re Petrie Retail · filed 2002-09-05(b)(1)

The combination of factors in this case leads us to conclude that the plan consummation motion was a core proceeding because it was not independent of the reorganization. Specifically, the plan consummation motion uniquely affected and was uniquely affected by core bankruptcy functions because the dispute between Luan and Marianne was based on rights established in the sale order, the plan consummation motion sought enforcement of a pre-existing injunction issued in the bankruptcy court's sale order, and the dispute involved an issue already before the bankruptcy court as part of its consideration of Luan's claim against the estate. We express no view as to whether any one of these facts alone would render a proceeding core. We further note, as the bankruptcy court did, that the bankruptcy court's core jurisdiction over the dispute between Luan and Marianne is limited to the enforcement of the rights established by the orders of the bankruptcy court and the resolution of issues raised in the reorganization.

Section 157 treats resolving claim objections as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re JOBS.COM, INC. · filed 2002-09-10

Resolving claim objections are core proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157.

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

Larocque v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Co.-TX (In Re Larocque) · filed 2002-09-17(b)(2)

I also conclude that this adversary proceeding is a core matter, which strongly favors it staying in the Bankruptcy Court. ... Additionally, the bankruptcy court has broad, well-established powers under § 157 to promote and facilitate the reorganization process.

Section 157(b) gives bankruptcy courts authority to hear and determine core proceedings.

Manzi v. Geenty (In Re Manzi) · filed 2002-09-18(b)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (L) classify certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings.

In re Ochs · filed 2002-09-25(b)(2)(A) and (L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Wolf v. McGuire (In Re McGuire) · filed 2002-09-30(b)(2)(I)

A proceeding to determine dischargeability of a particular debt is a core proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157 classifies proceedings as core when a creditor’s proof of claim or setoff makes the estate’s claims connected to allowance or disallowance of that claim.

Statutory Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Iridium Operating LLC v. Motorola, Inc. (In Re Iridium Operating LLC) · filed 2002-09-23(b)(2)(B) and (C); (d)

Thus, considering this and the Second Circuit’s instruction to construe Marathon narrowly and § 157(b)(2) broadly, all of the adversary proceeding claims against Motorola are core proceedings under §§ 157(b)(2)(B) & (C).

Section 157(b)(2) defines categories of bankruptcy matters treated as core proceedings.

Saults v. First Tennessee Bank (In re Saults) · filed 2002-09-11(b)(2)(A), (B), (E), (K), and (0)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats proceedings over who may pursue an alter ego claim against a debtor in possession’s principal as core matters.

Edwards Wood Products, Inc. v. Thompson (In re Icarus Holdings, LLC) · filed 2002-10-10(b)(2)(O)

Both proceedings have raised the issue of who may sue the principal of a debtor in possession under an alter ego theory. This is a core matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(2) broadly defines core proceedings and its listed examples are nonexclusive.

Agent Systems, Inc. v. Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (In Re Agent Systems, Inc.) · filed 2002-10-21(b)(2)

Finally, core proceedings are broadly defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The examples given in that section are not exclusive.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to treat a matter as a core proceeding.

In Re Gibson · filed 2002-11-08(b)

The court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2002).

Section 157 allows bankruptcy courts to hear and decide core bankruptcy proceedings referred by district courts.

In Re Simmons · filed 2002-12-03

The court finds that this proceeding is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the general reference order of the District Court effective July 10, 1984 (D. Kan. Rule 83.8.5).

Section 157(b) covers core proceedings in bankruptcy cases.

In Re Kujan · filed 2002-12-11(b)

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

Section 157(b) defines core proceedings to include claims against the estate, motions concerning the automatic stay, and determinations of dischargeability.

Sprague v. Spiegel-Sprague · filed 2003-01-09(b)

Core proceedings are defined to include “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate,” “motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay,” and “determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts.” (28 U.S.C. § 157(b).)

Section 157(b) makes whether a matter is a core proceeding relevant to whether the bankruptcy court or district court should exercise bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Shepard v. Patel (In Re Patel) · filed 2003-01-30(b)

Despite abundant confusion in the case law, technically the designation of a matter as a “core” proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) is outcome only as to the third issue, and has no direct bearing on the first two issues.

Section 157(b)(1)'s broad language does not alone make a proceeding core; prepetition state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste are non-core.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Integrated Health Services, Inc. v. Elkins (In Re Integrated Health Service · filed 2003-03-25(b)(1)

However, an action is not core simply because it can fit within the rather broad language of section 157(b)(1). ... The allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets are quintessential state law causes of action. The Adversary Proceeding is, therefore, a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not automatically make a state court lawsuit a core proceeding merely because a related proof of claim was filed in the bankruptcy case.

Frelin v. Oakwood Homes Corp. · filed 2003-04-30(b)(2)(B)

With respect to § 157(b)(2)(B), lawsuits filed in state court do not automatically become core proceedings in bankruptcy simply because a related proof of claim is filed in the bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(3) requires a bankruptcy judge to determine, on the judge’s own motion or a timely party motion, whether a proceeding is core or otherwise related to a title 11 case.

Tesler v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's (In Re Spree.com Corp.) · filed 2003-06-26(b)(3)

Bankruptcy courts, like any federal court, are obliged to raise sua sponte their subject matter jurisdiction. ... Indeed, this duty is explicitly stated both by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), and by ohe procedural rules binding this Court.

Section 157(b)(2) provides a non-exclusive list of core proceedings, so courts may consider case law when a claim falls outside the listed categories.

Sago v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2003-09-02(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) provides a non-exclusive list of proceedings that are core proceedings. Because Plaintiffs’ causes of action do not fall under the purview of any of the proceedings listed in § 157(b)(2), the Court must analyze case law to determine whether the claims are core proceedings.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to decide a core proceeding when two of the identified factors establish that it is core.

NWL Holdings, Inc. v. Eden Center, Inc. (In Re Ames Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 2004-08-27(b)

The Petrie Retail court declined to decide whether any one of those factors alone would render a proceeding core. ... But it is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion for this Court to determine that two of the three {i.e., factors # 1 and # 2) would.

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy judge to determine whether a proceeding is core or non-core before a party seeks withdrawal of the reference on non-core grounds.

Enron Power Marketing, Inc. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2004-12-15(b)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) states that “[t]he bankruptcy judge shall determine, on the judge’s own motion or on timely motion of a party, whether a proceeding is a core proceeding....” Courts of this Circuit have interpreted this statute as requiring a party to seek an initial determination from the bankruptcy court concerning whether a proceeding is core or non-core before moving to withdraw the reference in part on the grounds that the proceeding is non-core.

Section 157(b) places a §1113 proceeding within the bankruptcy judge’s core jurisdiction as a contested matter.

Indep Fiduciary Serv v. UAL Corporation · filed 2005-05-24(b)

But it did not; a proceeding under §1113 is a “contested matter” within the bankruptcy judge’s core jurisdiction rather than an ad- versary proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §157(b).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to decide core turnover proceedings, but a disputed prepetition debt collection claim cannot become core merely by being styled as turnover.

Savage & Associates, P.C. v. Mandl (In Re Teligent, Inc.) · filed 2005-05-25(b)(2)(C)

A proceeding under § 542(b) is a core proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C), and the Court may hear and determine the dispute. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). The use of § 542(b) to transform a garden-variety pre-petition common law cause of action into a core proceeding would eviscerate the Supreme Court’s holding in Northern Pipeline Contr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982), and permit the bankruptcy court to exercise the type of judicial power reserved for an Article III court.

Section 157 treats determinations about the applicability or violation of the automatic stay as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final orders.

In re Freeman · filed 2005-06-01

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, a determination regarding the applicability of the stay, including a violation thereof, is deemed a core proceeding over which this Court has been conferred with the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders.

Section 157(b) does not treat a dispute between a nondebtor and other defendants as a core proceeding when the debtor is not involved.

Naimoli v. Anchor Glass Container Corp. (In Re Anchor Glass Container Corp.) · filed 2005-06-03(b)

The Complaint under attack is between Naimoli, a non-debtor, and the Defendants. Anchor Glass Container Corporation, the Debtor, is not involved in this litigation directly or indirectly. It is obvious that this dispute is not a “core” matter within that term defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 makes a proceeding’s core or noncore status relevant to the bankruptcy judge’s authority to exercise jurisdiction, but not to whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Hart v. Logan · filed 2005-06-24

Whether a matter is “core” or “non-core” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) then controls the extent to which the bankruptcy judge may exercise the district court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction. Id. § 157(c).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a matter directly concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In re Desert Village Ltd. Partnership · filed 2005-07-19(b)(2)(A)

The motion before the Court for the adjustment of a contract is a matter directly concerning the administration of the estate, and thus is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). This Court, therefore, has the jurisdictional authority to enter a final order in this matter.

Section 157(b)(2) treats garnishment of a creditor’s distribution as a core proceeding when it directly affects administration and distribution of the bankruptcy estate.

Brickell v. Dunn · filed 2005-07-20(b)(2)

Because the garnishment directly affects the manner in which the bankruptcy estate is administered and distributed, it is a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court may exercise “full judicial power,” In re Lemco Gypsum, 910 F.2d at 787.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding that determines the priority of maritime liens as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Universal Oil Ltd. v. Allfirst Bank · filed 2005-08-11(b)(2)(K)

We are satisfied that the adversary proceeding was a core proceeding under the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code. The Code specifies a non-exhaustive list of core proceedings including, inter alia, "allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate," "determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens," "orders approving the sale of property," as well as "other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims." 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (K), (N), ( O ).

Section 157 treats requests to turn over property of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Committee of Tort Litigants v. Catholic Diocese of Spokane (In Re the Catholic Bishop of Spokane) · filed 2005-08-26(b)(2)(E)

This adversary has been repeatedly likened to a “turnover action,” as much of the disputed property is in the possession of the non-debtor defendants. Requests to “turnover” property of the estate are core proceedings under § 157(2)(E).

Section 157 treats malpractice claims against court-appointed professionals for work performed during a bankruptcy case as core proceedings.

Geruschat v. Ernst & Young, LLP (In Re Earned Capital Corp.) · filed 2005-09-02(b)(1)

We likewise conclude that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint against the Defendants is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) does not classify these ERISA pension claims as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Naimoli v. Anchor Glass Container Corp. (In Re Anchor Glass Container Corp.) · filed 2005-09-08(b)

It cannot seriously be gainsaid that any of the claims asserted by Naimoli are not within the “core” jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of the definition in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to enforce a discharge or related plan injunction as core when it concerns a central bankruptcy right, even if a new corporation functions as the reorganized debtor.

Conseco, Inc. v. Schwartz (In Re Conseco, Inc.) · filed 2005-09-09(b)(2)

Although bankruptcy jurisdiction does not extend to all questions involving interpretation of plans or confirmation orders after confirmation, when the question involves a central bankruptcy right like the discharge, the court has core jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to enforce the automatic stay as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Amedisys Inc v. Natl Century Fin · filed 2005-09-13(b)(2)(G)

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce the automatic stay against the Louisiana action because, as Amedisys concedes in its brief, the motion to enforce constitutes a “core proceeding” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to enforce the automatic stay as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

In Re: National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., Debtor. Amedisys, Inc. v. National Century Financial Enterprises, I · filed 2005-09-13(b)(2)(G)

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce the automatic stay against the Louisiana action because, as Amedisys concedes in its brief, the motion to enforce constitutes a “core proceeding” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make unjust enrichment and deepening insolvency claims core proceedings solely because they concern the bankruptcy estate.

Shandler v. DLJ Merchant Banking, Inc. (In Re Insilco Technologies, Inc.) · filed 2005-09-27(b)(2)(A) and (O)

Without more, the claims cannot be considered core based § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0). Therefore, I conclude that the unjust enrichment and deepening insolvency claims are not core proceedings.

Section 157(b) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction over claims that depend on rights created in bankruptcy and would not exist without the bankruptcy filing.

EOP-Colonnade of Dallas Ltd. Partnership v. Faulkner · filed 2005-11-08(b)

Because these claims are dependent upon the rights created in bankruptcy and would not exist but for the filing of Stonebridge’s bankruptcy, we find that these claims should be included within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. ... In sum, the bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction over all of the claims currently on appeal from the adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding arising from a post-petition agreement to sell a debtor-in-possession's assets as a core proceeding.

In Re Winstar Communications, Inc. · filed 2005-11-30(b)(2)

This adversary proceeding arises from a post-petition agreement to sell assets of the debtor-in-possession. It is well settled in this circuit that such an action is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding arising from a postpetition agreement to sell a debtor’s assets as a core proceeding.

Shubert v. Wellspring Media, Inc. · filed 2005-11-30(b)(2)

This adversary proceeding arises from a post-petition agreement to sell assets of the debtor-in-possession. It is well settled in this circuit that such an action is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a post-confirmation contract dispute a core proceeding when it invokes no Title 11 right and could arise outside bankruptcy.

Reliant Exploration Creditors' Trust v. Opus Oil & Gas LP (In Re Reliant Exploration Ltd.) · filed 2005-12-15(b)(2)

Nor does jurisdiction exist on the grounds that this is a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats the employment of a professional by the estate as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

In Re Great Lakes Factors, Inc. · filed 2005-12-19(b)(2)(A)

Matters pertaining to the employment of a professional by the estate directly concern the administration of the estate, and thus are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims that arise neither under the Bankruptcy Code nor from the bankruptcy case as non-core.

Astropower Liquidating Trust v. Xantrex Technology, Inc. (In Re Astropower Liquidating Trust) · filed 2005-12-22(b)(2)

Other than the fraudulent transfer and claim disallowance counts, nothing in the Plaintiffs Complaint finds its genesis in either the Bankruptcy Code or this bankruptcy case. As such, the Court concludes that the claims stated in Counts VI-XII are non-core.

State law claims do not become core proceedings merely because the alleged conduct continues after the bankruptcy filing.

Penthouse Media Group v. Guccione (In Re General Media, Inc.) · filed 2005-12-27(b)(1)

While some of the improper NTS offsets, which began pre-petition, continued after the commencement of the case, the timing did not convert them into core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to extend the automatic stay as a core proceeding because it is analogous to a motion to terminate, annul or modify the stay.

In Re Warneck · filed 2006-01-04(b)(2)(G)

This motion to extend the automatic stay is analogous to a motion to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay, and the determination is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies motions to assume or reject executory contracts as core proceedings.

In Re Helm · filed 2006-01-09(b)(2)

Motions to assume or reject executory contracts are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0), as “matters concerning the administration of the estate” and “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate ...”

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to avoid and recover preferential payments as core proceedings.

Fisher v. Enterprise Truck Line, Inc. (In Re CXM, Inc.) · filed 2006-01-17(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to Title 28, §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (H), and (0), because it involves matters concerning the administration of the estate, a potential order to turn over property of the estate, a determination, avoidance, and recovery of preferential payments, and because it is a proceeding affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate.

Section 157’s distinction between core and non-core proceedings determines a bankruptcy court’s adjudicatory authority but does not itself give the court discretion to deny arbitration.

Mintze v. American General Financial Services · filed 2006-01-18

Bankruptcy proceedings are divided into two categories: core and non-core. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. ... The core/non-core distinction does not, however, affect whether a bankruptcy court has the discretion to deny enforcement of an arbitration agreement. ... It merely determines whether the bankruptcy court has the jurisdiction to make a full adjudication.

Section 157 treats adjudication of a proof of claim and an objection to it as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

United States v. Gurley · filed 2006-01-20(b)(2)(B)

Adjudication of the filing of and objection to a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case is a core proceeding arising under Title 11.

Section 157 treats a claim as non-core when it can exist outside bankruptcy and invokes no Bankruptcy Code right, even if its outcome may affect the bankruptcy estate.

Stoe v. Flaherty · filed 2006-01-23

This is equivalent to the question whether Stoe’s claim is a “core” proceeding or a “non-core” proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157. ... Stoe’s claim is “related to” a bankruptcy case, but it does not “arise under” the Bankruptcy Code or “arise in” a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a debtor’s claims against creditors as core proceedings when the claims could have been raised as counterclaims to their proofs of claim.

Patterson v. Morris · filed 2006-01-25(b)(2)

Based on Bau-doin, because plaintiffs and defendants were a part of the same bankruptcy proceedings in which defendants filed proof of claims and plaintiffs failed to counterclaim in response therein, this Court finds that the particular claims filed by plaintiffs against defendants are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a post-confirmation subcontract dispute core when resolving it would neither administer estate assets nor substantially affect the confirmed plan.

Gilbane Building Co. v. Air Systems Inc. (In Re Encompass Services Corp.) · filed 2006-01-26(b)(2)

Conversely, in the present proceeding, the Subcontract was independent from the underlying bankruptcy, and voiding the assignment of the Subcontract would not substantially modify the express terms of the Confirmed Plan such that the debtor-creditor relationship would be affected. Therefore, this Court finds that this proceeding is non-core under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

A determination whether to dismiss a case under § 707(b) is a core proceeding because it directly affects discharge and the creditor-debtor relationship, giving the bankruptcy court authority to enter a final order.

In Re Glenn · filed 2006-02-07(b)(2)(J), (b)(2)(O)

As a determination of dismissal under this section directly involves the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, this matter is a core proceeding over which this Court has the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b) (2) (J)/(O); 1334.

Section 157(b)(2) treats fiduciary claims based on post-filing conduct as core when they are closely connected to administration of the debtor’s estate.

Turner v. Boyle · filed 2010-03-29(b)(2)

Claims are usually considered core when based on post-filing conduct and when closely connected to the administration of the debtor’s estate. ... For purposes of this motion to withdraw reference, the Court finds that the fiduciary claims against Mr. Boyle are core.

Section 157(a) permits referral of bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges, and § 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to enter final orders in core proceedings arising under title 11.

Moss v. Sallie Mae, Inc. Ex Rel. USA Funding (In Re Moss) · filed 2012-04-18(a), (b)(1)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding “arising under title 11” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 157(b)(1) because it involves causes of action created or determined by the Bankruptcy Code, namely 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(k)(l) and 525(c).

Section 157 does not require a bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core when it issues an interlocutory discovery order.

In re Argon Credit, LLC · filed 2019-01-10(b)(3)

The court need only resolve the question as to whether or not this proceeding is core if the order resolving this dispute is a final order. ... Such a discovery order is an interlocutory, not a final, order. ... Whether this proceeding is core or not under section 157 is therefore irrelevant.

Section 157(b)(3) requires a bankruptcy court to consider its jurisdiction on its own initiative.

Louis Michael Goldberg · filed 2020-03-27(b)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), this court has an independent duty to consider its jurisdiction, and it addresses the recognizable jurisdiction issues below.

Section 157 treats the sale of estate property and liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings within a bankruptcy court’s authority.

D. Brent Lemon D/B/A Law Office of D. Brent Lemon v. Hagood · filed 2017-07-26(b)(2)(N),(O)

As a part of “core proceedings” bankruptcy courts have the authority to sell property and liquidate assets of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (L), and (O) makes a dispute over a subpoena that would adversely affect a liquidating trustee’s administration of estate property a core proceeding.

In re Circuit City Stores, Inc. · filed 2016-09-06(b)(2)(A), (L), (O)

The Liquidating Trustee complains that compliance with the Subpoena will adversely affect his administration of the Liquidating Trust. Accordingly, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (L), and (O).

Motions to approve a bankruptcy sale and to enforce the sale order are core proceedings under § 157.

In re Vista Marketing Group Ltd. · filed 2016-09-12(b)(1), (b)(2)(N)

Both a motion to approve a sale of property and a motion seeking to enforce that order are proceedings “arising under title 11” and, therefore, are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) classify avoidance actions as statutorily core proceedings.

Solution Trust ex rel. AWTR Liquidation Trust v. 2100 Grand LLC (In re AWTR Liquidation Inc.) · filed 2016-03-11(b)(2)(F) and (H)

The complaint’s avoidance actions are all statutorily “core.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) & (H).

Section 157(b) treats an adversary proceeding involving the allowance or disallowance of a claim against the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Bank of Sun Prairie v. Kentucky Department of Revenue · filed 2015-07-31(b)(1), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(E)

And the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over Bulk’s adversary proceeding against KDOR. This was a core proceeding involving “the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate,” and thus fell comfortably within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(B), and (b)(2)(E).

Section 157 treats disputes about the content and filing of creditors’ proofs of claim as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Lenz v. Auto Acceptance (In Re Lenz) · filed 2011-04-07(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (O)

All three claims for relief stated in the Complaint fundamentally relate to the substantive content and procedure for filing creditors’ proofs of claim in a pending bankruptcy case. This court has jurisdiction to consider the claims for relief stated in the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(b)(1) and (2)(A) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies matters that are core proceedings within a bankruptcy court's authority to hear and decide.

In Re Dental Profile, Inc. · filed 2011-03-31(b)(2)(0)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157 allows district courts to assign bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy courts and authorizes bankruptcy courts to decide core proceedings.

Faulkner v. Eagle View Capital Management (In Re Heritage Organization L.L.C.) · filed 2011-04-18

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 157 does not give bankruptcy courts jurisdiction beyond that granted by section 1334; it merely allows district courts to assign cases to bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to hear and determine title 11 cases and core proceedings arising under or in a title 11 case.

D.E. Frey Group, Inc. v. FAS Holdings, Inc. · filed 2008-03-05(b)(1)

The language of the Bankruptcy statute is permissive, not mandatory, even for core civil proceedings. See In re Innes, 184 F.3d 1275, 1283-84 (10th Cir.1999); see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (“Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11”) (emphasis added); 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) (“the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11”) (emphasis added); 28 U.S.C. § 1412 (“A district court may-transfer a ease or proceeding under title 11 to a district court for another district, in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.”).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies matters concerning the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re Steward · filed 2006-02-24(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) for matters concerning the automatic stay.

Section 157(b)(2) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a core proceeding seeking to deny discharge and recover estate property.

Flinn v. Rains (In Re Rains) · filed 2006-03-03(b)(2)

It was a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge is empowered to hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine whether a debt is dischargeable as core proceedings.

Fliss v. Iowa Department of Revenue (In Re Fliss) · filed 2006-03-08(b)(2)(I)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a determination of whether property is exempt from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Milligan v. Trautman · filed 2006-03-10(b)(2)(B)

Determining whether an exemption applies to property that otherwise would be part of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the estimation and allowance or disallowance of claims against a debtor’s estate as core proceedings.

In Re Hirsch · filed 2006-03-10(b)(2)(B)

The estimation and allowance or disallowance of claims against a debtor’s estate are core proceedings over which a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction.

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

Andrus v. Ajemian (In Re Ajemian) · filed 2006-03-14(b)(2)(I)

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

Section 157 classifies a proceeding as core when it involves rights created by bankruptcy law or could arise only in bankruptcy; a state law action does not become core merely because it may affect estate property.

Gregory Rock House Ranch, LLC v. New Mexico State Engineer (In re Gregory Rock House Ranch, LLC) · filed 2006-03-15(b)(2)

“Core” proceedings are proceedings which involve rights created by bankruptcy law, or which would only arise within a bankruptcy proceeding. ... For this reason, the Court finds that it has “related to” jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding, which is a non-core proceeding.

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

In re Swigart · filed 2006-03-15(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding to determine a debt’s dischargeability as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Texas v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 2006-03-16(b)(2)

The Court has the authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding since it constitutes a core proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (I), and (O).

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

In Re Roberts · filed 2006-03-17(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157 treats a Chapter 7 dismissal determination that affects discharge and the creditor-debtor relationship as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In Re Peoples · filed 2006-02-28(b)(2)(J), (b)(2)(O)

As a determination of dismissal under this section directly involves the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, this matter is a core proceeding over which this Court has the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding tied to a filed proof of claim as core even when another defendant did not file a separate claim but acted through the claimant as its agent.

Lewallen v. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. · filed 2006-03-22(b)(2)

In the instant ease, Green Tree filed a proof of claim in plaintiffs underlying bankruptcy action. Even though U.S. Bank did not file a separate proof of claim in plaintiffs underlying bankruptcy action, plaintiff has alleged that Green Tree was acting as U.S. Bank’s agent and that the actions taken by Green Tree were in the course and scope of its agency and in furtherance of the business interests of U.S. Bank. (Plaintiffs Amended Complaint ¶ 8). Defendants in their Amended Answer admit that Green Tree was acting as U.S. Bank’s agent. (Defendants’ Amended Answer, ¶ 8)(Doc. # 39). Therefore, the Court finds that this is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers actions under 11 U.S.C. § 110 against bankruptcy petition preparers as core proceedings because their conduct affects administration of the bankruptcy case.

Gould v. Clippard · filed 2006-03-28(b)(2)(A)

This court agrees with other courts, including the Bankruptcy Court, that have found that the actions of BPPs undeniably have an impact on the administration of the bankruptcy case itself, and therefore actions under § 110 are core proceedings as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a dispute over a debtor’s exempt property as a core proceeding when it affects the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service v. Huff (In Re Huff) · filed 2006-03-29(b)(2)(O)

For our purposes, we conclude that a dispute over the exempt property of a debtor “affects the adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship” and accordingly, falls within the ambit of § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b) treats dismissal for failure to meet bankruptcy petition filing requirements as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may decide by final order.

Hedquist v. Fokkena (In Re Hedquist) · filed 2006-04-21(b)

To the contrary, the dismissal of a bankruptcy case for failing to meet the requirements for filing the petition is a core issue: the issue arises under title 11; it arises in a case under title 11; it concerns the administration of the estate; and it affects the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a request to waive a bankruptcy filing fee as a core proceeding involving administration of the case.

In Re Lineberry · filed 2006-05-01(b)(2)

A request to waive a filing fee is a “core” bankruptcy matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) in that a request made to a bankruptcy court to waive a filing fee due under the statute to the Clerk of that court is inherently a matter involved with the administration of the case, if not the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats an estate counterclaim against a person who filed a claim against the estate as a core proceeding; substituting a party does not change that status when the dispute remains the same.

CNH America, LLC v. Venture Industries Corp. (In Re Nm Holdings Co.) · filed 2006-05-22(b)(2)(C)

This dispute began its life as a “eounterclaim[ ] by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate,” a defined core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C). ... Thus, the substitution changed nothing about the essential facts or law of the dispute.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats a preference claim as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Federalpha Steel LLC Creditors' Trust v. Federal Pipe & Steel Corp. (In Re Federalpha Steel LLC) · filed 2006-05-31(b)(2)(F)

The interest is especially strong here, given that the Trust’s claim is a preference claim under section 547 of the Code and so is a core bankruptcy matter, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (K) classify a dispute over an attorney’s lien on funds still held by the bankruptcy trustee as a core proceeding.

Seiller & Handmaker v. Smith (In re Commonwealth Institutional Securities) · filed 2006-06-06(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(K)

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the matter set forth in the Complaint constitutes a core proceeding under both 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), and (K).

Section 157(b) treats claims as noncore when they neither invoke Bankruptcy Code rights nor arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Quad City Bank v. Chapman (Chapman Lumber Co.) · filed 2006-06-12(b)

The issues raised do not invoke substantive rights provided by the Bankruptcy Code or arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. Therefore, they are not “core” proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a state-law claim against a trustee’s counsel as a core proceeding when the claim arises from counsel’s work administering the bankruptcy estate.

Lowenbraun v. Canary · filed 2006-07-06(b)(2)

Because Ethel’s claims would not exist but for the bankruptcy proceeding, and because Canary filed the Contempt Motion to assist in the administration of the estate, Ethel’s state-law action was a core proceeding, thus precluding mandatory abstention.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats an action to enforce a bankruptcy court’s property sale order as a core proceeding.

Jamaica Shipping Co. v. Orient Shipping Rotterdam, B.V. · filed 2006-07-21(b)(2)(N)

“[Ojrders approving the sale of property” constitute core proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N), and the Jamaica Adversary Action, which turns on the terms of the Sale Order, amounts to a request that the bankruptcy court enforce that order. We therefore deem the Jamaica Adversary Action a core proceeding and conclude that the bankruptcy court’s initial decision to exercise jurisdiction over that action was not error.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a contested matter arising from prior bankruptcy court orders and affecting estate administration as a core proceeding.

In Re World Waste Services, Inc. · filed 2006-07-24(b)(2)(A) and (D)

This contested matter is a core proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (D), because it arises out of the Court’s previous orders and affects the administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to decide a pre-discharge dispute over Chapter 13 plan payments and related creditor charges as a core proceeding when it concerns estate administration and the debtor-creditor relationship.

Washington Federal Savings Bank v. McGuier (In Re McGuier) · filed 2006-07-25(b)(1)

A “core proceeding” under Section 157 is one invoking a “substantive right provided by Title 11” or one that “by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.” ... For all these reasons, the bank’s Motion falls ... under the category of a “core proceeding.” Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction exists in this Court to resolve the pending dispute.

Section 157(b) allows a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a core proceeding involving interpretation of its sale order.

Amphenol Corp. v. Shandler Ex Rel. Insilco Liquidating Trust (In Re Insilco Technologies, Inc.) · filed 2006-09-18(b)

Moreover, I conclude that this proceeding is core, thereby allowing the Court to enter a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157’s core and non-core distinction concerns a bankruptcy court’s authority to adjudicate a matter; core status does not determine whether the court may deny arbitration.

Jalbert v. Pacific Employers Insurance (In Re Olympus Healthcare Group, Inc.) · filed 2006-10-06(b)

The distinction between core and non-core claims relates only to a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to fully adjudicate the matter.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings to recover assets allegedly fraudulently transferred from a debtor’s estate as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Master-Halco, Inc. v. D'ANGELO · filed 2006-10-10(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) contains a non-exhaustive list of types of actions that constitute “core” proceedings and includes “(A) matters concerning the administration of the estate” and “(H) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances.” Notwithstanding plaintiffs protestations that defendants have not adequately demonstrated that this action constitutes a “core” proceeding, it seems clear that it falls within either or both of these “core” categories, as plaintiff advances causes of action including fraud which seek to recover assets alleged due to it by the debtors (Atlas, Picard) which plaintiff claims were transferred out of the debtors’ estates and into the hands of defendant Rickster (among other entities).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to enforce an order from a core bankruptcy proceeding as core.

Cargill, Inc. v. Man Financial Inc. · filed 2006-10-19(b)

Since “the enforcement of orders resulting from core proceedings are themselves considered core proceedings,”27 a determination as to whether Man is entitled to be treated as a party to the Exclusivity Agreement, which determination flows from the New York Bankruptcy Court’s Orders regarding the assignment of the Exclusivity Agreement to Man, is also core.

Section 157 treats state law fraudulent transfer claims as non-core when they invoke no right created by bankruptcy law and could exist outside bankruptcy.

St. Francis County Farmers Ass'n v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 2006-11-13(b)

The state law fraudulent transfer claims are clearly a non-core proceeding because they do not invoke a substantive right created by bankruptcy law and could exist outside bankruptcy.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to exercise core jurisdiction over a proceeding concerning interests in real estate when the parties admit its core status.

In RE DeSHAZO · filed 2006-11-16(b)(2)

While that sounds closest to subsection (b)(2)(K) (determining the validity extent and priority of liens), it is more akin to subparagraph (H), proceedings regarding fraudulent conveyances. However characterized, the allegation of core jurisdiction is admitted by the Defendant. See Answer ¶ 3. This is, therefore, a core matter over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats determinations of whether property is exempt from a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Soza v. Hill (In Re Soza) · filed 2006-11-17(b)(2)(B)

Determining whether an exemption applies to property that otherwise would be part of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats a section 544 fraudulent conveyance action as a core proceeding even when it relies on state law.

Burtch v. Dent (In Re Circle Y of Yoakum) · filed 2006-11-21(b)(2)(H)

An avoidance action under section 544 is a core proceeding, even though it relies on state law.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a related state-law dispute core merely because it may affect administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Ebner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (In Re Stowe) · filed 2006-11-28(b)(2)(A)

Moreover, it is not sufficient simply to assert that a matter which is related to the bankruptcy case therefore affects administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to finally decide a settlement motion concerning the allowance of claims against the estate and the use of estate property as a core proceeding.

In Re Resource Technology Corp. · filed 2006-12-04(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(M)

The settlement motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate) and (M) (orders approving use of property), and so may be finally decided by this court.

Section 157 treats a motion for sanctions arising from conduct in a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments.

In Re Carl F. Semrau DDS, Ltd. · filed 2006-12-14(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Thus, the Debtors’ motion for sanctions is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). Therefore, the Court may enter appropriate orders and judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and rejects the Respondents’ challenges to the Courts subject matter jurisdiction over the Debtors’ motion.

Section 157(b) does not treat tort claims concerning property outside the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Welt v. MJO Holding Corp. (In Re Happy Hocker Pawn Shop, Inc.) · filed 2006-12-21(b)

Accordingly, the complaint that the appellees wish to file in state court could never qualify as a “core proceeding” of HHPS’s bankruptcy estate because it alleges tortious actions against property that is not part of the bankrupt estate.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify assigned estate claims as core proceedings when the assignment severs their connection to the bankruptcy case.

Valentine v. Elliott · filed 2007-01-04(b)(2)

In sum, this action does not fall under any of the types of core proceedings mentioned by the complaint because any connection of the claims to the bankruptcy case has been severed by the bankruptcy trustee’s assignment of the claims to William D.C. Valentine.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to distribute sale proceeds and objections to it as a core proceeding when a successful avoidance action could bring the property into the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Ball · filed 2007-01-31(b)(2)

The Debtor’s motion to approve the distribution of sale proceeds and the objections thereto form a core bankruptcy proceeding because if the anticipated adversary proceeding against Ms. Ball is successful, the “transfer” of a one-half ownership interest in the Condominium may be avoided and the property would come fully into the estate to pay the Debtor’s creditors. Therefore, this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (H), (N), and (O).

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning estate administration and turnover of estate property as core proceedings.

Warren Producers, Inc. v. Imperial Gas Resources, LLC (In Re Warren Producers, Inc.) · filed 2007-02-01(b)(2)(A), (E)

Core matters are defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157. Included in this definition are orders for turn over of estate property and matters concerning the administration of the estate. See, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (E). The matters in dispute revolve around the series of Letter Agreements. Debtor claims IGR has wrongly refused to turn over operation of the wells to it. These claims necessarily involve administration of the estate and estate property. Accordingly, they are core proceedings and mandatory abstention is inappropriate.

Section 157(b) treats the determination of creditor priority under contractual subordination provisions as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Bank of New England Corp. · filed 2007-02-06(b)

The interpretation and application of the subordination provisions is necessary in order to determine whether the Senior Indenture Trustees’ claim for post-petition interest should take priority over the claim of the Junior Indenture Trustees. Determination of the priority of liens implicates the administration of the estate and is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a state-law suit core solely because a recovery could add funds to the bankruptcy estate when the suit neither involves a right particular to bankruptcy nor arises strictly in a bankruptcy context.

Mugica v. Helena Chemical Co. (In Re Mugica) · filed 2007-02-07(b)(2)(O)

While a final judgment in Debtor’s favor may create additional funds for the estate, this suit involves neither a right particular to bankruptcy nor does it arise strictly in a bankruptcy context. Accordingly, the Court finds this suit does not constitute a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a trustee’s settlement of disputed estate claims as a core proceeding when it concerns estate administration and liquidation of assets.

Morley v. Ontos, Inc. (In re Ontos, Inc.) · filed 2007-03-01(b)(2)

Here, the trustee’s motion falls squarely within the definition of core proceedings: the settlement of the disputed claims clearly concerns the administration of the Ontos estate and the liquidation of its assets. As a eore proceeding, the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over the stipulation.

Section 157 treats a proceeding about the extent of a debtor’s exemption and the trustee’s authority to administer the asset as core when it directly concerns administration of the estate.

Herrans v. Mender · filed 2007-03-15(b)(1)

In the present case, the core issue is the extent of an exemption claimed by Debtors over an asset of the estate and the authority of the Trustee to administer it. This issue concerns a core proceeding because it relates directly to the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats proceedings involving the allowance or disallowance of claims against the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Wireman v. IRS (In Re Wireman) · filed 2007-04-06(b)(2)(B)

As bankruptcy courts retain jurisdiction to enforce and interpret their own orders, this adversary proceeding constitutes a core proceeding. In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83, 97 (2nd Cir.2005); 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

A contract dispute over competing interests in property sale proceeds does not become a core proceeding merely because the debtor lists the property in its bankruptcy schedules.

Raven II Holdings v. Quest Title Co. (In Re W.S.F.-World Sports Fans, LLC) · filed 2007-04-13(b)(2)

Merely listing a parcel of real property on the statements and schedules of a bankruptcy petition when the debtor does not hold legal title to the property does not adjudicate ownership, nor does it transmute a civil proceeding to determine competing interests in the proceeds from the sale of the property arising from a contract dispute into a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (O) identify proceedings involving dischargeability and other proceedings affecting liquidation of the estate as core proceedings.

Rooz v. Kimmel (In Re Kimmel) · filed 2007-04-11(b)(2)(I) and (O)

The court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction, that this is a core proceeding, and that remand is inappropriate. ... Determining what is and is not covered by the discharge injunction is a core proceeding that is properly decided by this court. ... It will be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (O); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334, 1441, and 1452.

Section 157(b)(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of core proceedings and recognizes proceedings arising from a substantive Title 11 right or uniquely in bankruptcy.

Mahoney v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (In Re Mahoney) · filed 2007-04-23(b)(2)

Section 157 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a non-exhaustive list of core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The tort alleged in this case does not fit in any of these categories. However, this does not conclude the inquiry. The Fifth Circuit has held, “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.” Matter of Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th. Cir.1987). The tort of unreasonable collection efforts is not “a substantive right provided by title 11”; it is a creature of Texas common law. See generally Harned v. E-Z Fin. Co., 151 Tex. 641, 254 S.W.2d 81 (1953); Duty v. Gen. Fin. Co., 154 Tex. 16, 273 S.W.2d 64 (1954). Regarding the second Wood prong, the tort of “unreasonable collection efforts” is not “a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case”; such claims arise without the filing of a bankruptcy petition. See e.g. id. In all events, this particular tort could not be said to have arisen in the case because it arose after the case was closed. Thus, this is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding to enforce the bankruptcy discharge injunction as a core proceeding.

Torres v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (In Re Torres) · filed 2007-05-03(b)

There is no question that the plaintiffs’ claims to enforce Bankruptcy Code section 524(a)(2)’s discharge injunction are core proceedings “arising under” the Bankruptcy Code (an individual chapter 7 debtor is accorded no more important protection than his or her discharge under section 524(a) of the Bankruptcy Code), over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the District Court’s July 20, 1984 general order of reference.

Section 157’s core or non-core classification is reached only after subject matter jurisdiction is established under § 1334.

Valley Historic Ltd v. Bank of New York · filed 2007-05-17

The determination that a claim is core or non-core is one that should not be reached, however, if subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) classify actions to avoid transfers under Bankruptcy Code §§ 544, 547, and 548 as core proceedings.

Graham v. Yoder MacHinery Sales (In Re Weldon F. Stump & Co.) · filed 2007-06-26(b)(2)(F)/(H)

In this proceeding, the Trustee’s action to avoid the transfers made by the Defendant is brought in accordance with §§ 544, 547 and 548. (Doc. No. 1). While § 544 does not stand independently, incorporating applicable state law (here O.R.C. §§ 1336.05(B) and 1313.56), actions brought under each of these sections are deemed “core proceedings,” thereby conferring on this Court original jurisdiction over such matters. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F)/(H); § 1334(b).

State law marital-property claims that do not arise under title 11 or in a title 11 case are non-core proceedings under § 157(b)(1).

Bennett v. Sveinsvoll (In Re Bennett) · filed 2007-07-03(b)(1)

Other than the automatic stay questions, none of Bennett’s allegations arise under title 11 or in a case under title 11, as they do not fall into any of the itemized categories of proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify state law claims that could exist outside bankruptcy as core proceedings merely because they relate to a bankruptcy case.

Maya, LLC v. Cytodyn of New Mexico, Inc. (In Re Cytodyn of New Mexico, Inc.) · filed 2007-07-20(b)(2)

The state law claims in this proceeding do not fall under any of the categories listed in § 157(b)(2). ... In this case, the litigation could (and does) exist outside of bankruptcy, and indeed was going forward to trial in the superior court before Allen removed it. I conclude the litigation here is “non-core”.

Section 157 treats the allowance of claims against the estate and determinations of debt dischargeability as core proceedings, even when the claims arise under state law.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilkins · filed 2007-07-30(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(I)

As the bankruptcy court correctly noted, however, State Farm’s claims against Wilkins are core proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code, specifically under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate) and (b)(2)(I) (determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a request to waive a bankruptcy filing fee as a core proceeding involving administration of the case.

In Re Phillips · filed 2007-08-20(b)(2)

A request to waive a filing fee is a “core” bankruptcy matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) in that a request made to a bankruptcy court to waive a filing fee due under the statute to the Clerk of that court is inherently a matter involved with the administration of the case, if not the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the liquidation and allowance of claims as a core proceeding.

Wallace v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 2007-09-12(b)(2)(B)

To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to have his claims liquidated and allowed, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

A contempt proceeding to enforce a discharge injunction is a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter orders and judgment.

In Re Schlichtmann · filed 2007-09-25(b)

A contempt proceeding to enforce the discharge injunction is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), and therefore the bankruptcy court may enter appropriate orders and judgment in the matter.

Section 157 treats motions concerning the automatic stay and determinations of lien validity as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Mitchell v. Fort Davis State Bank · filed 2007-08-30(b)(2)(G), (b)(2)(K)

A motion to terminate, annul, or modify an automatic stay, as well as determinations regarding the validity of liens, are core proceedings that should be brought before bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(b)(2)’s core-proceeding categories do not encompass a state law contract action that does not concern estate administration, turnover of estate property, or liquidation of estate assets.

Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC v. Segway Inc. · filed 2007-10-16(b)(2)

This Court does not believe that this is a core proceeding. Defendant does not cite a case holding that a state law breach of contract action, with alternative state law claims, is a core proceeding. Furthermore, this Court does not believe that the case at bar involves “matters concerning the administration of the estate,” “orders to turn over property of the estate,” or “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of assets of the estate .... ” 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), 157(b)(2)(E) and 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157 treats malpractice claims against an accountant for work performed during bankruptcy that implicates estate administration as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s final adjudicative authority.

Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP (In Re Seven Fields Development Corp.) · filed 2007-10-24(b)(2)

In this regard, we have no doubt that the bankruptcy and district courts correctly found that appellants asserted their alleged malpractice claims in a core proceeding that “aris[es] in” the bankruptcy case.

Section 157 treats malpractice claims involving a bankruptcy accountant’s work on estate administration and asset liquidation as core proceedings.

In Re: Seven Fields · filed 2007-10-24(b)(2)(A) and (O)

In addition to the reasoning of Southmark, we also note that section 157 specifically provides that core proceedings include “matters concerning the administration of the estate” and “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). Such matters are at issue here.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a request to waive a bankruptcy filing fee as a core proceeding involving administration of the case.

In Re Lephew · filed 2007-11-09(b)(2)

A request to waive a filing fee is a “core” bankruptcy matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) in that a request made to a bankruptcy court to waive a filing fee due under the statute to the Clerk of that court is inherently a matter involved with the administration of the case, if not the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats turnover, fraudulent conveyance, and lien validity or extent proceedings as core proceedings.

Alexander v. Alternative Debt Portfolios, LLC (In Re EZ Pay Services, Inc.) · filed 2007-12-13(b)(2)

The Trustee’s action against ADP includes a count for the turnover of property of the estate, a count to avoid and recover fraudulent conveyances, and a count to determine the validity and extent of a lien, each of which is expressly listed as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats determinations of a lien’s validity, extent, priority, and related perfection as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re Cook · filed 2008-01-11(b)(2)

In the instant case, this Court will not abstain from adjudicating issues that are core proceedings. Such proceedings include the determinations of the validity, extent and priority of Welch’s lien and the inseparable issue of perfection.

Section 157 treats a claim based on a postpetition refusal to turn over estate property as a core proceeding, even when the claim invokes state law.

Lassman v. Hollis Meddings Group, Inc. (In re Charles River Press Lithography, Inc.) · filed 2008-01-22(b)(2)(A), (E)

However, to the extent that Count IX seeks recovery on the basis of a postpetition refusal to turnover the retainer to the Trustee, Count IX relates to the administration of the estate and therefore is a core proceeding, notwithstanding that the alleged basis of recovery is state law.

Section 157(b)(2) excludes state-law actions from core proceedings when they neither arise under bankruptcy law nor arise in a bankruptcy case.

Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Contra Costa Retail Center · filed 2008-02-20(b)(2)

They are clearly not "core” proceedings because, as discussed above, they are neither based on bankruptcy law nor did they arise in a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies this adversary proceeding as a core proceeding.

Arellano v. Montoya (In Re Arellano) · filed 2008-02-25(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion for relief from stay as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Parks v. Progressive Northern Insurance (In Re Hokanson) · filed 2008-02-27(b)(2)(A)

A motion for relief from stay is a core proceeding which this Court may hear and determine as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) classifies matters concerning estate administration and liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings.

In Re Cupp · filed 2008-02-28(b)(2)(A), (O)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) (2005).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.

Whitmore Lake Public Schools v. CMC Telecom, Inc. (In Re CMC Telecom, Inc.) · filed 2008-02-29(b)(2)(A)

Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157. Core proceedings include proceedings on matters concerning the administration of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (I) makes claim allowance and dischargeability proceedings core bankruptcy proceedings.

Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Benun (In Re Benun) · filed 2008-02-29(b)(2)(B), (I)

This matter is thus “core” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (I).

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

In Re Osterwalder · filed 2008-03-14(b)(2)(E)

The adjudication of matters concerning the turnover of estate property are deemed to be core proceedings over which this Court has the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders and judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

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

In Re Zaruba · filed 2008-03-11(b)(2)(L)

The hearings on disclosure statements and plans are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2) treats matters involving administration of the bankruptcy estate and the sale and liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings.

McCall v. Telerent Leasing Corp. (In Re BICC Ltd. Partnership) · filed 2008-03-21(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) in that it involves administration of the bankruptcy estate and the sale and liquidation of assets of the estate.

Section 157(b) treats proceedings concerning estate administration and lien validity as core proceedings.

Gunn v. Titlemax of Alabama, Inc. · filed 2008-03-31(b)

The matter before the Bankruptcy Court was a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) because it concerned the administration of the bankruptcy estate and requested the determination of the validity of TitleMax’s lien.

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

In Re Watson · filed 2008-04-07(b)(2)(L)

Confirmation of these Debtors’ plans is clearly a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) (providing that “[c]ore proceedings include ... confirmations of plans”).

Section 157 treats proceedings to avoid and recover fraudulent transfers as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Kapila v. United States (In Re Taylor) · filed 2008-04-10(b)(2)(H)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to enforce the bankruptcy court’s discharge injunction as a core proceeding.

In Re Jones · filed 2008-04-10(b)(2)

Debtors’ Motion for Sanctions for violation of the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524(b) is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), because it “depends on the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce its own orders under the Bankruptcy Code.”

Section 157(b)(2) covers the adversary proceedings the court classified as core.

Peterson v. Berg (In Re Berg) · filed 2008-04-10(b)(2)

This Adversary and the various actions thereunder constitute core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (H), (I), (K), (N), (O).

Section 157(b)(2) treats certain bankruptcy matters, including orders approving the sale of estate property, as core proceedings.

In Re Hart's Manufacturing Co. · filed 2008-03-19(b)(2)(G), (b)(2)(A), and (b)(2)(O)

By virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), (A), and (0), this is a core proceeding.

A contract-based advancement claim arising from employment agreements is not a core proceeding under § 157 when deciding it requires no inquiry into estate administration.

Street v. the End of the Road Trust · filed 2008-04-29(b)

After reviewing the claims asserted in the State action and the Employment Agreements, the Court concludes that the claims asserted do not constitute a “core proceeding” under section 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) includes matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate among core proceedings, allowing the bankruptcy court to enter final judgment.

In RE McMILLEN · filed 2008-05-07(b)(2)(A)

Insofar as the contract at issue in this proceeding was entered into and approved in the course of the Debtor's administering his estate in bankruptcy, the parties' dispute concerning formation, breach, recision, and enforcement of the contract is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (core proceedings include matters concerning the administration of the estate). The Court has authority to enter final judgment in the matter.