Donarumo v. Furlong (In Re Furlong)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a scheduled claim encompasses related claims arising from the same underlying facts that would be uncovered by a trustee’s investigation
• finding that the individual debtor’s stay does not “extend to the assets of a corporation in which the debtor has an interest, even if the interest is 100% of the corporate stock”
• automatic stay does not extend to assets of corporation in which debtor has interest, even where interest is 100 percent of stock
• “Claims for Breach of Contract (Andrew Donarumo et al.) with ‘indeterminate’ value” was adequate
• “[T]he stay is inapplicable to property that has been removed from the estate.”
• “[t]he law is abundantly clear that the burden is on the debtors to list the asset and/or amend their schedules, 11 and that in order for property to be abandoned . . . , the debtor must formally schedule the property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(1) before the close of the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).