McVay v. Phouminh (In Re Phouminh)

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an explanation “in general terms that is merely suggestive of reasons that assets became depleted falls short of the mark.”
• finding that an explanation “in general terms that is merely suggestive of reasons that assets became depleted falls short of the mark.”
• noting that “[a]n explanation of the debtor’s circumstances in general terms that is merely suggestive of reasons that assets became depleted falls short of the mark”
• explanation in general terms that is merely suggestive of reasons for depleted assets “falls short of the mark,” citing Bell v. Stuerke (In re Stuerke), 61 B.R. 623, 626 (9th Cir. BAP 1986)
• explanation in general terms that is merely suggestive of reasons for depleted assets “falls short of the mark,” citing Bell v. Stuerke (In re Stuerke), 61 B.R. 623, 626 (9th Cir. BAP 1986)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).