Law Office of Peter Johnson

Specializing in Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Consumers and Small Business

Peter Johnson is a board certified bankruptcy attorney with over 38 years of experience representing consumers, small business enterprises, creditors and bankruptcy trustees, primarily in the Federal Bankruptcy Courts in Houston, Texas and the surrounding area. He has served as a bankruptcy trustee for over twenty years and has encountered most issues that can arise in a bankruptcy case.

 

PETER JOHNSON – SELECTED REPORTED CASES

EXEMPTION CLAIM ON HOMESTEAD LITIGATED BY JOHNSON

In re Hunt, 61 B.R. 224 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1986) : “…once debtors acquired their initial homestead by actual occupancy, such homestead could be abandoned only by moving from such homestead with intention to abandon such homestead as a home, and thus, debtors had not abandoned initial home at time they acquired second home”

EXEMPTION CLAIM ON HOMESTEAD LITIGATED BY JOHNSON AND SUCCUSSFULLY REVERSING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Matter of McDaniel, 70 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 1995):  “…In the “Eyes of Texas,” McDaniel constitutes a family “ 'til Gabriel blows his horn,” and the 165 acres he lives on is sheltered by the Texas family homestead exemption. Like the Light Brigade, ours “not to reason why....”

EXEMPTION CLAIM ON HOMESTEAD LITIGATED BY JOHNSON AFFIRMED ON APPEAL

In re Carlew, 469 B.R. 666, (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2012) aff'd sub nom. W. v. Carlew, No. BR 11-37886-H4, 2012 WL 3002197 (S.D. Tex. July 23, 2012):  “…insurance proceeds on homestead are protected in homestead laws, notwithstanding that they were paid from proceeds of a lawsuit for recovery of such proceeds.”

DISCHARGE OBJECTION BY JUDGMENT CREDITOR LITIGATED BY JOHNSON

In re Henley, 480 B.R. 708 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2012):  Creditors brought adversary proceeding to deny debtors a discharge in Chapter 7, and debtors counterclaimed for creditors' allegedly willful violations of automatic stay.  After lengthy trial, Johnson prevailed in behalf of Judgment Creditor and the Debtors’ discharge was denied.

INVOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY LITIGATED BY JOHNSON

In re CorrLine Int'l, LLC, 516 B.R. 106 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014) :  “status of creditor as an insider and recipient of certain voidable transfers did not preclude it from filing involuntary petition”

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL RECOVERY OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS LITIGATED BY JOHNSON AND SUCCUSSFULLY REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT

In re Rexene Corp., No. 91-1057, 1996 WL 571545, at *1 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 1996) rev'd, 129 F.3d 1256 (3d Cir. 1997); Reversed. In re Rexene Corp., 129 F.3d 1256 (3d Cir. 1997):  “Unlike other ERISA plans, top hat plans are unfunded and do not have to be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument.”  After successful trial in Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, the District Court reversed and Johnson successfully appealed to the Third Circuit and recovered in full for his client.

 DISCHARGE OBJECTION SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED BY JOHNSON

In re Bentley, 531 B.R. 671 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2015):  Debtor, a winner on the initial season of “Shark Tank” had discharge challenged by creditor that was allegedly induced to make a $100,000 investment in debtors' business as result of debtors' projections of future profitability of that business, failed to satisfy burden of showing that debtors had made any false representations with knowledge of their falsity and intent to deceive.  Debtors discharge granted.

DISCHARGE OBJECTION SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED BY JOHNSON

In re Hughes, 354 B.R. 820 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006):  “…debt arising from debtor's alleged failure, following termination of his domestic relationship with creditor, to properly account for funds that she had deposited in his personal account could not be excepted from discharge, as debt for debtor's “willful and malicious injury”.

DISCHARGE OBJECTION BASED ON STATE JURY VERDICT REVERSED BY JOHNSON ON APPEAL

In re Dang, 560 B.R. 287 (S.D.Tex., 2016):  “…The District Court, Lee H. Rosenthal, J., held that under Texas law, state court conjunctive jury damages award did not have preclusive effect regarding nondischargeability of debt”