Alfred C. Hagan

How Judge Hagan rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Hagan 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 Idaho
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 1998
Served
1985–1998
Commissioned
1985-07
Education
University of Idaho College of Law, J.D., 1958
Signed orders read
17

How Judge Hagan decides

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

What persuades

A party seeking a bankruptcy remedy needed evidence tied to the governing statutory requirement, not merely a plausible equitable narrative.

“The debtor has not met his burden of proof, and the plan cannot be confirmed.”

Procedural preferences

Professional compensation required prior employment approval and timely disclosure even when counsel disputed which estate had funded the payment.

“Therefore, as the fees must be returned to the estate under either scenario, the Trustee’s motion will be granted”

Cautions

Sanctions were not imposed merely because a party advanced an unsuccessful position; the court looked for inequitable conduct or lack of good faith.

“The arguments made by the Trustee are found not to be convincing but the arguments were made in good faith.”

Signed rulings

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

In re Zaleha
· 1993-11-29
Motion for sanctions (Daniel Zaleha) Denied

“For these reasons, the debtor’s motion for sanctions will also be denied.”

Motion for equitable subordination (Daniel Zaleha) Denied

“Debtor’s motion to subordinate Rosholt Robertson’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 510 is also denied.”

Plan confirmation (Daniel Zaleha) Denied

“The debtor has not met his burden of proof, and the plan cannot be confirmed.”

Motion for stay pending appeal (Daniel Zaleha) Granted

“The stay pending appeal will be granted.”

Pintlar Corp. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York (In re Pintlar Corp.)
· 1997-02-28
Motion for partial summary judgment (Gulf USA Corporation and Pintlar Corporation) Granted

“A partial summary judgment is authorized on behalf of the Plaintiffs.”

Summary judgment (defendant insurers) Denied

“The motion of the Defendants for summary judgment will be denied.”

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Dibben (In re Dibben)
· 1992-04-06
Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 6 (Sears, Roebuck & Co.) Granted

“Accordingly, the conclusion is made the debt is nondischargeable under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).”

In re Biancavilla
· 1994-08-03
Objection to exemption (chapter 7 trustee) Granted in part

“Therefore, the debtors’ claim of exemptions as to the computer, the computer system and the software will be denied as to Idaho Code § ll-605(l)(a). The computer desk is presumably serviceable as an ordinary desk and therefore the debtors’ claim of the computer desk will be allowed.”

Williams v. Petersen Construction (In re Petersen)
· 1994-11-08
Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 4 (Bruce and Marsha Williams) Denied

“Judgment will be entered for the defendant on this cause of action.”

Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 6 (Bruce and Marsha Williams) Granted

“Judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiffs in this amount.”

Objection to discharge section 727 a 2 (Bruce and Marsha Williams) Denied

“Judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants on this cause of action.”

Pintlar Corp. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York (In re Pintlar Corp.)
· 1995-03-24

The court concluded that the insurance-coverage dispute was ripe, stating that “the present action to determine coverage of the claims is ripe.” The retrieved memorandum said that a separate order would enter but did not reproduce that order's formal disposition, so no motion outcome is classified here.

In re Wyatt
· 1994-08-03
Motion for turnover (Thomas and Audrey Cates) Granted

“The Cates’ motion for turnover of personal property is granted.”

In re Moore
· 1995-10-26
Motion to modify chapter 13 plan (William and Patty Moore) Denied

“The Debtors’ motion to modify will be denied.”

Motion to modify chapter 13 plan (chapter 13 trustee) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s motion to modify will be denied, and the Trustee shall return the remainder of the insurance proceeds to the- Debtors.”

Application for attorneys fees (trustee's attorney) Granted

“Accordingly, Mr. Myers’ application for attorney’s fees is approved.”

Application for attorneys fees (debtors' attorney) Granted

“Accordingly, Mr. Noack’s application is granted.”

Motions to dismiss (Ford Motor Credit Company) Denied

“The motion to dismiss will thus be denied.”

In re Yensen
· 1995-07-17
Motions to dismiss (chapter 13 trustee) Granted

“The trustee’s motion to dismiss is granted and the ease is DISMISSED.”

In re Smith
· 1995-08-01
Plan confirmation (Bud and Marcy Smith) Denied

“Confirmation of the debtors’ plan will be denied by separate order.”

In re Lawson
· 1995-09-26
Motion for relief from automatic stay (Internal Revenue Service) Granted

“Accordingly, the IRS’s motion for relief from the automatic stay to setoff the Debtors’ tax refund is granted.”

Objection to setoff allocation (chapter 13 trustee) Denied

“The Trustee’s objection to the IRS’s proposed allocation of the setoff is denied.”

In re Sasinouski
· 1985-09-06
Motion for determination of secured status (Transamerica Financial Services) Granted

“I conclude that Transamerica’s claim is secured by both the land and the mobile home on that land.”

A historical record

Judge Hagan 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.