Thomas W. Lawless

How Judge Lawless rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Lawless 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 Massachusetts
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 1985
Served
1960–1985
Commissioned
1960-07-15
Signed orders read
18

How Judge Lawless decides

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

What persuades

The court treated the bank's failure to investigate its collateral as distinct from intentional deception by the debtor.

“The debtor’s alleged failure to inform the Bank of the boat’s documented status at most constitutes negligence, and does not establish a basis for declaring the debt involved nondischargeable in the contemplation of bankruptcy law.”

Procedural preferences

Venue transfer required a clear, substantial balance in favor of the proposed forum, not a simple shift of inconvenience.

“Where a transfer would merely shift the inconvenience from one party to the other or where after balancing all the factors, the equities lean but slightly in favor of the movant, the ... choice of forum should not be disturbed.”

Cautions

Equitable considerations did not permit revival of an already terminated lease.

“Courts will not revive a terminated lease simply because of the lease’s importance to the reorganization efforts.”

Signed rulings

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

Arlington Five Cents Savings v. Santore (In re Santore)
· 1985-07-15
Complaint to determine nondischargeability (Arlington Five Cents Savings Bank) Denied

“The Bank has failed to establish a case under either § 523(a)(2)(A) or § 523(a)(6). Accordingly, the debt here involved may be discharged.”

In re Turner
· 1985-05-09
Motion to dismiss involuntary petition for lack of standing (Debtor John C. Turner) Denied

“In accordance with the above, the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

In re Tech Hifi, Inc.
· 1985-05-30
Claim for unpaid rent as lease cure (Landlord) Granted

“the landlord is entitled to payment through the date of this memorandum (May 29, 1985) in the amount of $30,100.”

Claim for interest as lease cure (Landlord) Granted

“The landlord’s claim for interest is allowed in the amount of $1899.”

Request for attorney fees as lease cure (Landlord) Granted in part

“I have determined that a reasonable fee for the services rendered is $3500.”

Request for expense reimbursement as lease cure (Landlord) Granted in part

“The request for $100 fee for word processing is denied as this constitutes overhead of the attorneys office. The request for reimbursement for ‘xerox, telephone, mise.’ is denied as it is merely an estimated charge, and no detail is provided. Expenses are allowed in the amount of $205.”

Martell v. Voltolini (In re Voltolini)
· 1985-04-11
Motion to dismiss nondischargeability complaint (Defendant-debtor) Denied

“In accordance with the above, the relief requested in the defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

In re Bolton Hall Nursing Home
· 1984-05-15
Request for upward adjustment of attorney rates (Sullivan & Worcester) Denied

“Accordingly, Sullivan & Worcester’s request for an upward adjustment of these attorneys’ hourly rates is denied.”

Final fee application (Goldstein & Manello) Granted

“Accordingly, final fees are awarded to the firm of Goldstein & Manello in the amount of $519,800.83”

Final fee application (Craig and Macauley) Granted

“Accordingly, this applicant is awarded a final fee of $345,606.63”

Final account application (Trustees and receivers) Granted

“No objection was timely filed to the final accounts submitted by the trustees and receivers and they are allowed.”

Pending adversary proceedings and contested matters (Court closing administration) Moot / procedural

“all pending adversary proceedings and contested matters are dismissed with prejudice except only the pending dispute between the debtor Rosewood Gardens Health Related and New York State”

In re Thomas, Inc.
· 1984-06-08
Request for upward adjustment of attorney rates (Hanify & King) Denied

“Accordingly, counsel’s request for an upward adjustment is denied.”

Final fee application (John D. Hanify and Hanify & King) Granted in part

“John D. Hanify and the law firm of Hanify & King are awarded a final fee of $62,128”

Final expense reimbursement application (John D. Hanify and Hanify & King) Granted

“this applicant is allowed final reimbursement of expenses of $1,559.12”

Final fee application (Herbert C. Kahn) Granted

“this applicant is awarded a final fee of $16,500”

Final fee application (M.G. Sherman & Co.) Granted

“M.G. Sherman & Co., accountants, is awarded a final fee of $3,400”

Jones v. Walbridge (In re Walbridge)
· 1985-07-16
Motion to transfer bankruptcy case (Rose and David Jones, Ceram-Dent, and Falls River Savings and Loan Association) Denied

“Accordingly, an order shall enter denying both Motions.”

Motion to transfer adversary proceeding (Rose and David Jones, Ceram-Dent, and Falls River Savings and Loan Association) Denied
Cambridge Machined Products Corp. v. United States
· 1985-12-31
Motion to dismiss tax collection injunction complaints (United States) Granted

“the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed.”

Aegean Fare, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Revenue (In re Aegean Fare, Inc.)
· 1983-12-02
Motion to modify adequate protection order (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Revenue) Granted in part

“I order that periodic payments be paid to the Commonwealth as adequate protection of its secured interest in the Debtor’s equipment at the rate of $823.00 per week, commencing Monday, December 5, 1983, in lieu of the interim order of $500.00 per week.”

In re Crabb
· 1985-04-03
Motion for authority to assume executory contract (Debtors) Denied

“In accordance with the above, the relief requested in the debtor’s motion for authority to assume executory contract is DENIED.”

Herrick v. Department of Welfare (In re Herrick)
· 1983-02-24
Complaint to avoid judicial lien (Plaintiff-debtor) Denied

“The plaintiff-debtor’s complaint to avoid a judicial lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) is accordingly denied and the complaint is DISMISSED.”

In re Acton Foodservices Corp.
· 1984-05-09
Motion to strike appearance claim and pleadings (Debtor Acton Foodservices Corporation) Granted

“the Debtor’s motion to strike appearance, proof of claim and motion of Anthony R. Martin-Trigona is allowed.”

A historical record

Judge Lawless 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.