Alan H. W. Shiff

How Judge Shiff rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Shiff no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut
Position
bankruptcy
Status
No longer serving
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Commissioned
1981-01-01
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Shiff decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Professional-compensation requests were evaluated based on whether the services were necessary when performed, without relying on hindsight.

“An award for compensation under § 330 is not premised on the benefit of hindsight”

Procedural preferences

At the pleading stage, a dismissal motion tested legal sufficiency rather than the weight of evidence that might later be offered.

“the function of a motion to dismiss is merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.”

Cautions

A debtor who concealed or improperly shielded assets risked losing the central benefit of a bankruptcy discharge.

“Nothing is more corrosive to the achievement of bankruptcy objectives than the perception that creditors are unpaid or under paid while the debtor enjoys the benefit of hidden or improperly shielded assets.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Peterson v. Peterson (In Re Peterson)
· 2009-04-08
Motion for relief from automatic stay (nondebtor spouse) Granted in part

“the automatic stay does not bar the movant from seeking domestic support for herself and for her children as itemized in subsections (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) of paragraph 14 of her motion; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the exception to the automatic stay provided by § 362(b)(2)(C) is not applicable to the marital residence. Therefore the relief from stay is denied on that basis”

In Re All Phase Electrical Contracting, Inc.
· 2009-07-31
Motion for relief from automatic stay (surety company) Denied

“Accordingly, Colonial’s motion is denied”

Ross v. Camus (In Re Camus)
· 2008-04-29
Motions to dismiss (debtors (Ross proceeding)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motions are DENIED”

Motions to dismiss (debtors (second consolidated proceeding)) Denied
In Re Dapontes
· 2007-03-23
Objection to plan confirmation (bank) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, New Alliance Bank’s objection to confirmation is sustained”

Britestarr Homes, Inc. v. City of New York (In Re Britestarr Homes, Inc.)
· 2007-05-10

The interim order preserved the status quo pending trial of the preliminary-injunction issues.

In Re Complete Retreats, LLC
· 2006-12-29
Limited objection to sale (state taxing authority) Granted

“For the foregoing reason, Florida’s limited objection to the subject sale is sustained”

Crestwood James, LLC v. Persechino (In Re Persechino)
· 2010-01-20
Nondischargeability adversary claim (judgment creditor) Denied

“the Judgment debt is not excepted from discharged under § 523, and judgment shall enter in favor of the defendant.”

In RE McCRAY
· 2006-07-24
Nondischargeability adversary claim (credit union) Granted

“For the reasons that follow, judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiff.”

In Re Calise
· 2003-08-13
Motion for relief from automatic stay (secured creditor) Denied

“Accordingly, the motion is DENIED”

United States v. Argenti (In Re Argenti)
· 2008-08-04
Objection to discharge (United States) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s discharge is DENIED”

American Home Assurance Co. v. Ryan (In Re Raytech Corp.)
· 2005-01-19
Objection to prospective relief (defendants) Denied

“the objection is OVERRULED”

Motion for prospective relief (plaintiffs) Granted

“the motion for prospective relief under Rule 83.13(c) is GRANTED”

In Re Westville Distribution and Transport
· 2003-05-06
Motion to convert (United States Trustee) Denied

“it is ORDERED that the Motion to Convert is DENIED”

Motion to dismiss bankruptcy case (debtor) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED nunc pro tunc effective November 5, 2002.”

A historical record

Judge Shiff no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.