Paul Mannes

How Judge Mannes rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Mannes 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 Maryland
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Deceased
Served
1981–2016
Commissioned
1981-01-01
Signed orders read
19

How Judge Mannes decides

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

What persuades

Education and enforcement obligations were treated as support when the agreement and family arrangement showed that function.

“The record allows one conclusion only that the reason the parties set child support at $0.00 was in recognition of their shared physical and legal custody and the sharing of the expenses of their children.”

A prepetition credit agreement did not extend its lien to ordinary post-petition deposits.

“The court finds that the funds deposited post-petition were not cash collateral as defined by 11 U.S.C. 363(a).”

Procedural preferences

Equitable concerns could not rescue a request filed after the rule-based dischargeability deadline expired.

“Had First Union’s motion for enlargement of time been filed at the time of counsel’s discussion with the telephone attendant, the motion would have been timely filed, and the court would have had jurisdiction to grant the motion.”

Cautions

Stay relief followed where the foreclosure was complete before filing and the purported filer lacked written authority.

“Inasmuch as the debtor no longer holds either equitable or legal title to the subject property, cause exists for relief from the automatic stay.”

Signed rulings

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

In re Bateman; In re Loop; In re Kahn; In re Stafford
05-90532PM; 05-90537PM; 06-10475PM; 06-10967PM · 2006-05-01

The court held that recent discharge ineligibility under section 1328(f) did not itself bar Chapter 13 eligibility.

Chelsea Woods Condominium v. Okupe (In re Okupe)
05-12022PM · 2005-09-12
Motion for relief from automatic stay or annulment (Chelsea Woods Condominium) Granted

“cause exists for relief from the automatic stay.”

In re Jackson
05-22135PM · 2005-09-02

The proposed reaffirmation greatly exceeded the vehicle's value and failed the debtor-best-interest standard.

United States Trustee v. Runkle (In re Runkle)
03-31268PM; Adv. 05-1014 · 2005-04-22
Motions to dismiss (David B. Runkle) Denied

“The motions will be denied.”

Motion to strike complaint (David B. Runkle) Denied
In re Trobaugh
04-23634PM · 2005-01-06

The parties' agreement made post-majority education payments support entitled to priority treatment.

In re Evans
03-31438PM · 2004-11-17
Motion to dismiss under 707 b (United States Trustee) Granted

“the United States Trustee has sustained his burden and overcome the presumption in favor of granting a discharge. In sum a Chapter 7 discharge would be a substantial abuse of the provisions of chapter 7.”

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hemsley (In re Bennett)
03-17361PM; Adv. 03-1483PM · 2004-11-15
Motion to amend or for relief from dismissal order (Ford Motor Credit Company) Granted

“Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that dismissal of the adversary proceeding was inappropriate.”

Wrublik v. Wrublik (In re Wrublik)
04-14699; Adv. 04-1527PM · 2004-07-12
Motion for reconsideration (Marjorie Joan Wrublik) Denied

“The Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.”

In re Krandell
01-18596 · 2004-06-04

The court read section 1307(d) as barring post-confirmation conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 11 but allowed supplemental briefing.

Luppino v. Evans (In re Evans)
01-23765; Adv. 01-1524-PM · 2002-04-24
Summary judgment (Glenn A. Luppino) Granted

“The court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.”

In re On Tour, LLC
01-13030-PM · 2002-04-24
Fee application (Petitioning creditors) Granted in part

“Compensation for expenses is hereby reduced to $2,201.12.”

In re Bacon
97-22742 · 2002-03-19
Application for refund of plan funds (Debtor) Denied

“the court finds that the trustee was required to disburse the funds which were returned to him according to the Plan, absent timely modification of the Plan by the Debtor.”

A historical record

Judge Mannes 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.