Examples of State Court Judgment in a sentence
A thorough review of the FAC and the parties’ arguments convinces us that we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Mains’s claims because they seek an adjudication in this court that would, if granted, substantively nullify the State Court Judgment.
The Complaint alleges that the indebtedness established by the State Court Judgment is excepted from Defendant’s discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6).
The allegations in the Amended Complaint paint an unattractive picture of a scheme to prevent collection of the Plaintiffs’ State Court Judgment.
The Plaintiffs’ § 523(a)(6) claim suffers from the same deficiencies as the discussion in Section III.B because they argue the contract-based State Court Judgment is non-dischargeable.
They only seek a determination that their State Court Judgment based on contract damages is non-dischargeable.
The allegations addressing the inconsistent information in the Defendant’s bankruptcy papers and financial statements might support a claim under § 727(a)(4).Despite the general allegations of wrongdoing by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint seeks relief identical to that sought in its first Complaint: a finding of non- dischargeability with respect to its claim for the State Court Judgment based on actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) or willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6).
To grant Mains relief for “Defendants’ attempts to collect unlawful debt from him,” we would have to determine that the State Court Judgment was erroneous and that Citibank and Chase were not the proper holders of the loan and had no entitlement to the debt.
This agreement precludes the assertion by the Parties or by any creditor of the estate of any further actions, claims or causes of action that are released in this Agreement.Postpetition Settlement Agreement at ¶¶11–16.Dayco contends that Azriel is now precluded from seeking to enforce the State Court Judgment against Yona Inc.
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the State Court Judgment, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied Yehuda and Miriam’s petition for leave to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision.Yehuda launched a new offensive against Nachshon in March 2004, when he and two of Miriam’s corporations (MDC and USG&E) filed involuntary petitions for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code against Multiut and Nachshon.
Nachshon’s motion requests summary judgment only with respect to Count I regarding the dischargeability of the Nachshon Involuntary Judgment.In Count I, Multiut alleges that the State Court Judgment is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code as a debt incurred as a result of false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.