Cunningham v. T & R Demolition, Inc. (In Re ML & Associates, Inc.)

301 B.R. 195 | United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas | 2003

voidedCited 13 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A trustee cannot avoid a preferential transfer to a subcontractor under Section 547(b) when the subcontractor would have received full payment from a payment bond in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation.

T & R did not receive more than it would have received had the transfer not been made.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas, 2003

Related Cases

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.

Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

2011remanded

A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.

Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi

1992enforced

A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.

Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.

1999voided

Sovereign immunity bars subcontractors from enforcing equitable liens against the United States Government, as the APA's waiver of immunity does not extend to claims for money damages.

Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.

2010affirmed

A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.

PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. Partnership

2004voided

DTPA claims are not assignable because assignment would defeat the statute's primary purpose of encouraging individual consumers to bring claims themselves, and DTPA claims are too personal and punitive in nature to be transferred as property.