Answers to Case Problems
(Page 490)
1. Yes. The court pointed out that once a petition in bankruptcy is filed an automatic stay was
triggered that prevents any creditor from taking any action to exercise control over any property in
the debtor’s estate. TAAS clearly exercised control by refusing the return the truck until ordered to
do so by the court. In re Castillo, 456 B.R. 719 (Bankr. N.D. Georgia)
odds with the policy underlying the Bankruptcy Code. In re Palumbo, 353 B.R. 37 (Mass.)
4. No. The court stated that Letourneau filing an involuntary case against himself was not proper
under any circumstance. An involuntary petition may be filed only by creditors. In re Letourneau,
422 B.R. 132 (N.D. Illinois)
5. No. The court found that by executing the modification agreement, all Kostelnik did was agree to
numerous changes regarding a document to which she never became a party. In addition, even if it
had given ABN an interest in the property, it would be an avoidable preferential transfer. In re
Answers to Summary Cases for Part Eight
(Page 492)
1. Yes. The court said there was no objectively reasonable interpretation of the word “modify” that
would have justified Roberts answering no to the question on the policy application. The court
found it significant that even in Roberts’ testimony he said the truck “had been altered in many
ways.”
2. Yes. Since Beckon had to rent another space for $10,000 a month for two years, the court said the
possession and use of the building clearly had a monetary value to Beckon. The court added that
Beckon also had a financial loss to whatever improvements it had made that were damaged by the
fire and wind storm. The lack of title was immaterial.