《楊清泉律師專欄》BK COURT DECIDES SEVENTEEN PERCENT OF …(二)
楊清泉律師事務所
BK COURT DECIDES SEVENTEEN PERCENT OF RESTAURANT PURCHASE PRICE NOT DISCHARGED(二)
《楊清泉律師專欄》BK COURT DECIDES SEVENTEEN PERCENT OF RESTAURANT PURCHASE PRICE NOT DISCHARGED(一)
Case went to trial in June, 2010, and the court rendered its memorandum of decision last month. On §523(a)(2), the court found that defendant ‘bought the business from plaintiff based on her representations that the business operating seven days a week would gross $2,00 a day… and would be able to repay the loan based on this revenue stream. Defendant testified that when he began to operate the business, the business did not gross $2,000 a day, but only $600 to $700 a day. Defendant testified that because the business did not generate the revenue as represented to him by plaintiff and because additional capital was needed to replace the non-functioning equipment, he was not able to make installment payments on the note to plaintiff. Defendant’s testimony is corroborated by the income tax returns filed for 2007 and 2008…’ The court found client’s testimony ’that he intended to repay plaintiff as he represented in the promissory note and security agreement to be credible.’ Accordingly, the court finds ‘that plaintiff has not met her burden of proving that defendant made false representation to her for purposes of §523(a)(2).’
However, the court found that client acted with intent to injure plaintiff when he transferred equipment to pay creditors because client knew that seller wanted the restaurant back when she sued him in state court to get the restaurant back. Despite this knowledge he transferred equipment to pay creditors breaching the collateral agreement. The court found the transfer of equipment as ‘malicious.’ The value of equipment transferred was determined to be $30,000 and was not dischargeable. $141,000 was discharged.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than four thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
《楊清泉律師專欄》BK COURT DECIDES SEVENTEEN PERCENT OF RESTAURANT PURCHASE PRICE NOT DISCHARGED(一)
Case went to trial in June, 2010, and the court rendered its memorandum of decision last month. On §523(a)(2), the court found that defendant ‘bought the business from plaintiff based on her representations that the business operating seven days a week would gross $2,00 a day… and would be able to repay the loan based on this revenue stream. Defendant testified that when he began to operate the business, the business did not gross $2,000 a day, but only $600 to $700 a day. Defendant testified that because the business did not generate the revenue as represented to him by plaintiff and because additional capital was needed to replace the non-functioning equipment, he was not able to make installment payments on the note to plaintiff. Defendant’s testimony is corroborated by the income tax returns filed for 2007 and 2008…’ The court found client’s testimony ’that he intended to repay plaintiff as he represented in the promissory note and security agreement to be credible.’ Accordingly, the court finds ‘that plaintiff has not met her burden of proving that defendant made false representation to her for purposes of §523(a)(2).’
However, the court found that client acted with intent to injure plaintiff when he transferred equipment to pay creditors because client knew that seller wanted the restaurant back when she sued him in state court to get the restaurant back. Despite this knowledge he transferred equipment to pay creditors breaching the collateral agreement. The court found the transfer of equipment as ‘malicious.’ The value of equipment transferred was determined to be $30,000 and was not dischargeable. $141,000 was discharged.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than four thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
把此文章分享到：
關於 楊清泉律師事務所
