Case summary: A company GHC obtained a judgment to secure $45,458.86 from two people G and N in Ohio state court and filed for garnishment seeking funds from various banks held by the people G and N. People G and N disputed the company GHC’s right of garnishment and claimed that the funds were exempted amount but offered no proof. In response, banks deposited $23,911.97 with the court which was delivered to the company GHC. Later, the people G and N filed a bankruptcy petition in the court. After the people G and N were granted a discharge, they filed a “motion to return funds to debtors” but offered no proof that their debt to the company GHC was included in the discharge.
To find:The arguments of the company GHC in response to the motion filed by the people G and N.
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Chapter 15 Solutions
Lms Integrated Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card Cross/miller’s The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th
- The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) was created as a wholly government-owned corporation to insure wheat producers against unavoidable crop failure. As required by law, the FCIC published in the Federal Register conditions for crop insurance. Specifically, the FCIC published that spring wheat reseeded on winter wheat acreage was ineligible for coverage. When farmer Merrill applied for insurance on his wheat crop, he informed the local FCIC agent that 400 of his 460 acres of spring wheat were reseeded on the winter wheat acreage. The agent advised Merrill that his entire crop was insurable. When drought destroyed Merrill’s wheat, Merrill tried to collect the insurance, but the FCIC refused to pay, asserting that Merrill is bound by the notice provided by publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. Is the FCIC correct? Explain.arrow_forwardPSC Metals, Inc. (PSC), entered into an agreement whereby it extended credit to Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and took back a security interest in personal property owned by Keystone. PSC filed a financing statement with the state, listing the debtor’s trade name, “Keystone Steel & Wire Co.,” rather than its corporate name, “Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.” When Keystone went into bankruptcy, PSC filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to obtain the personal property securing its loan. Keystone’s other creditors and the bankruptcy trustee objected, arguing that because PSC’s financing statement was defectively filed, PSC did not have a perfected security interest in the personal property. If this were true, then PSC would become an unsecured creditor in Keystone’s bankruptcy proceeding. Is the financing statement filed in the debtor’s trade name, rather than in its corporate name, effective? Explain your answer.arrow_forwardJean died in a common-law state in 2023 and was survived by her husband, Loren, and three adult children. Jean's gross estate, all of which was owned solely in her name, was composed of the following assets and date of death fair market values: Assets Values Common stock $ 4,900,000 Residence 750,000 Personal property 60,000 IRAs 3,450,000 Hummel figurines 175,000 Total Assets $ 9,335,000 Jean's only liabilities, together with their date of death balance, were as follows: Liabilities Balance Mortgage on residence $175,000 Car loan 8,000 Total $183,000 The following is a list of all of the gratuitous transfers that Jean made during her lifetime: 2000: Placed the common stock listed above in an irrevocable trust in which she retained the right to a 5% distribution of the trust account revalued annually for 25 years with the remainder to her children at her death; the date of gift fair market value of the stock was $190,000; the value of Jean's…arrow_forward
- Hutchins and O’Neil, as general partners in the Haddon View Investment Co., became limited partners in Car Wash Investments. The general partner in Car Wash was the Minit Man Development Company. Coopers and Lybrand accountants handled the accounting work for both Minit Man and Car Wash. They performed audits and prepared financial statements that allegedly revealed two healthy companies. Nevertheless, both Car Wash and Minit Man went out of business. As a result, Hutchins and O’Neil lost a total of $252,000. They sued Coopers and Lybrand, alleging malpractice, breach of contract, concealment, fraud, and deceit in the accountants’ work for Car Wash and Minit Man. Coopers and Lybrand argued that Hutchins and O’Neil could not sue the firm because Car Wash and Minit Man were the clients, not Hutchins and O’Neil. Were the accountants correct?arrow_forwardOTC Ltd has ten members which included Hudson, a chartered accountant, not employed to the Company. The articles of the Company contained a provision that Hudson would be employed by the Company to do the Company’s account by February 20, 2011 for a stated fee. Several months after the date stated Hudson did not hear from the Company and after several inquiries he was told that the Company hired another accountant. Hudson has decided to take action against the Company. Advise himarrow_forwardJohn Bunker has assets of $130,000 and liabilities of $185,000 owed to nine creditors. Nonetheless, his cash flow is positive, and he is making payment on all of his obligations as they become due. I. M. Flintheart, who is owed $22,000 by Bunker, files an involuntary petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 7 against Bunker. Bunker contests the petition. What result? Explain.arrow_forward
- The McDonald Investment Company was a corporation organized and incorporated in the state of Minnesota. The principal and only place of business from which the company conducted operations was Rush City, Minnesota. More than 80 percent of the company’s assets were located in Minnesota, and more than 80 percent of its income was derived from Minnesota. McDonald sold securities to Minnesota residents only. The proceeds from the sale were used entirely to make loans and other investments in real estate and other assets located outside the state of Minnesota. The company did not file a registration statement with the SEC. Does this offering qualify for an intrastate offering exemption from registration? Explain your answer.arrow_forwardVerisony sells iPhones to the public. Verisony sold and delivered an iPhone to Muriel oncredit. Muriel executed and delivered to Verisony a promissory note for the purchaseprice and a security agreement covering the iPhone. Muriel purchased the iPhone forpersonal use. Verisony did not file a financing statement. Is Verisony’s security interestperfected? Explain.arrow_forwardDonald Wayne Doyle (Debtor) obtained a guaranteed student loan to enroll in a school for training truck drivers. Due to his impending divorce, Debtor never attended the program. The first monthly installment of approximately $50 to pay the student loan became due. Two weeks later, Debtor filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Debtor was a 29-year-old man who earned approximately $1,000 per month at an hourly wage of $7.70 as a truck driver, a job that he had held for 10 years. Debtor resided on a farm, where he performed work in lieu of paying rent for his quarters. Debtor was paying monthly payments of $89 on a bank loan for his former wife’s vehicle, $200 for his truck, $40 for health insurance, $28 for car insurance, $120 for gasoline and vehicular maintenance, $400 for groceries and meals, and $25 for telephone charges. In addition, a state court had ordered Debtor to pay $300 per month to support his children, ages 4 and 5. Debtor’s parents were assisting him by…arrow_forward
- B. Hawkeye Bank & Trust and affiliated banks agreed to refer bank customers to Financial Marketing Services, Inc. (FMS) for the purchase of life insurance. Hawkeye and FMS shared the commissions. Hawkeye employees and some independent agents licensed through FMS made the actual sales; however, all insurance business was FMS’ property. Because of concern about the confidentiality of bank customer information, Hawkeye decided to terminate its contract with FMS and sell insurance directly to its customers. The independent agents claimed Hawkeye terminating the contract with FMS constituted intentional interference with the agents’ contracts and prospective relations. Was it? Explain your position.arrow_forwardSubject: acountingarrow_forwardAt the end of 2001, Lehnhoff Inc. had $75 million in cash on its balance sheet. During 2002, the following eventsoccurred. The cash flow from Lehnhoff’s operating activities totaled $325 million. Lehnhoff issued $500 million incommon stock. Lehnhoff’s notes payable decreased by $100 million. Lehnhoff purchased fixed assets totaling $600million. How much cash did Lehnhoff Inc. have on its balance sheet at the end of 2002?arrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education