The scenario describes a situation involving a Rhode Island business, “Oceanfront Artisans,” which has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The trustee’s role in a Chapter 7 case is to liquidate the debtor’s non-exempt assets and distribute the proceeds to creditors. Rhode Island law, like federal bankruptcy law, distinguishes between secured, priority, and general unsecured claims. Secured claims are those backed by collateral, such as a mortgage on a property or a lien on equipment. In this case, the loan from “Coastal Bank” for the pottery kiln is secured by the kiln itself. Therefore, Coastal Bank has a right to the proceeds from the sale of the kiln to the extent of their secured debt. Priority claims, such as certain taxes or wages, are paid before general unsecured claims. General unsecured claims are those not secured by collateral and do not qualify for priority status. “Harborview Supplies” holds a claim for raw materials purchased on credit, which is a typical general unsecured claim. Under Rhode Island insolvency law, which largely mirrors the Bankruptcy Code, secured creditors are paid from the proceeds of their collateral first. After secured claims are satisfied from their collateral, and any priority claims are addressed, the remaining assets are distributed pro rata among the general unsecured creditors. Since the kiln is the collateral for Coastal Bank’s loan, the trustee would first attempt to sell the kiln. If the sale proceeds are sufficient to cover the \( \$15,000 \) owed to Coastal Bank, then Coastal Bank is paid in full from those proceeds. If the sale proceeds are less than \( \$15,000 \), Coastal Bank would receive the entire proceeds and would then have a deficiency claim as a general unsecured creditor for the remaining balance. If the sale proceeds exceed \( \$15,000 \), the excess would become part of the general bankruptcy estate. Harborview Supplies, as a general unsecured creditor, would then receive a distribution from the remaining assets in the estate after secured and priority claims are satisfied. The question asks about the distribution to Harborview Supplies, which is a general unsecured creditor. The distribution to general unsecured creditors is based on the remaining assets after all higher-priority claims have been satisfied. Without knowing the total value of the estate, the outcome of the kiln sale, and any priority claims, we can only describe the general principle. However, the question implicitly asks which type of claim Harborview Supplies represents and how it is generally treated in the distribution waterfall. Given that Harborview Supplies provided raw materials on credit and has no mention of collateral, their claim is a general unsecured claim. The correct answer reflects this classification and the principle of pro rata distribution among such claims after secured and priority claims are paid.

The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (RIVTA), codified at Rhode Island General Laws § 6-16-1 et seq., provides the framework for avoiding fraudulent transfers. A transfer is considered fraudulent if it is made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. Alternatively, a transfer can be fraudulent if made without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer, and the debtor was engaged or was about to engage in a business or transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the transaction, or the debtor intended to incur debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due. In the given scenario, the transfer of the waterfront property by Mr. Alistair to his nephew, Bartholomew, for a nominal sum of \$10,000, when the property’s fair market value is \$500,000, raises significant concerns under the RIVTA. The substantial disparity between the value transferred and the value received indicates a lack of reasonably equivalent value. Furthermore, Mr. Alistair’s documented financial distress, including impending foreclosures and substantial outstanding debts to creditors like the Providence Bank, suggests that he was either engaged in a transaction that left his assets unreasonably small or intended to incur debts beyond his ability to pay. Specifically, RIVTA § 6-16-4(a)(2) addresses transfers made without receiving reasonably equivalent value under circumstances where the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. While insolvency is not explicitly stated as a prerequisite for this specific subsection, the debtor’s financial condition is a critical factor. The statute also allows for avoidance if the debtor intended to incur debts beyond their ability to pay as they became due. Mr. Alistair’s actions, particularly the transfer of a significant asset for a fraction of its value while facing substantial liabilities, strongly supports an inference of fraudulent intent or, at minimum, a transfer made under conditions that render it voidable. Providence Bank, as a creditor, can seek to avoid this transfer. Under RIVTA § 6-16-7, a fraudulent transfer can be avoided by a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made. The bank’s claim arose prior to the transfer of the property. The available remedies for a creditor include avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, or an attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred. Given the facts, the bank would likely seek to avoid the transfer of the waterfront property to Bartholomew, thereby bringing the asset back into Mr. Alistair’s estate to satisfy his debt to the bank. The key legal basis is the lack of reasonably equivalent value coupled with the debtor’s financial circumstances indicating an intent to defraud or hinder creditors, or a transfer that rendered the debtor insolvent.

In Rhode Island, the determination of a debtor’s solvency for the purposes of insolvency proceedings, particularly concerning fraudulent conveyances under Rhode Island General Laws § 6-16-1 et seq. and the bankruptcy code, hinges on the balance between liabilities and assets. A debtor is generally considered insolvent if the present fair salable value of their property is less than the amount of their debts. This is a balance sheet test. For instance, if a Rhode Island business, “Oceanview Enterprises,” has total liabilities of $500,000 and its assets, when valued at their present fair salable value, are determined to be $400,000, then Oceanview Enterprises would be deemed insolvent. This insolvency determination is crucial for understanding the legal implications of transactions entered into by the business, especially if those transactions could be challenged as preferential transfers or fraudulent conveyances. The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, which mirrors many provisions of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, focuses on whether a transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or if the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent at the time or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The critical threshold is the inability to meet financial obligations as they become due, or a negative net worth when assets are fairly valued.

The scenario involves a business, “Coastal Crafts,” operating in Rhode Island, facing significant financial distress. The core issue is determining the appropriate legal framework for addressing its insolvency. Rhode Island General Laws Title 10, Chapter 20, “Insolvency,” and related federal bankruptcy statutes, particularly Chapter 7 (liquidation) and Chapter 11 (reorganization) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, are the primary legal considerations. Coastal Crafts has ceased operations and its assets are insufficient to cover its liabilities. A Chapter 7 liquidation under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code is the most fitting resolution when a business is irrevocably insolvent and has no viable path to continued operation. This process involves the appointment of a trustee to liquidate the business’s assets and distribute the proceeds to creditors according to a statutory priority scheme. Rhode Island law provides the framework for state-level insolvency proceedings, but for a business entity, federal bankruptcy law is generally the governing mechanism for liquidation or reorganization. Given the cessation of operations and insufficient assets, a Chapter 7 liquidation is the most direct and legally sound approach to wind down the affairs of Coastal Crafts. This avoids the complexities and costs associated with a Chapter 11 reorganization, which is designed for businesses seeking to continue operations. A state-supervised assignment for the benefit of creditors, while an option for insolvency resolution, is often superseded by federal bankruptcy proceedings when the debtor is a business entity, especially in cases of complete cessation of operations and asset liquidation. The question asks for the most appropriate legal mechanism for a business that has ceased operations and is unable to pay its debts. This points towards a liquidation process. Federal bankruptcy law provides the most comprehensive and structured mechanism for business liquidations in the United States, with Chapter 7 being the specific provision for this purpose.

The scenario involves a Rhode Island business, “Coastal Crafts,” which is seeking protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The core issue is the treatment of a secured claim held by “Oceanview Bank” and an unsecured claim held by “Artisan Supplies.” In a Chapter 11 reorganization, secured creditors are entitled to receive property of a value equal to the amount of their secured claim, or the collateral itself. The Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A), outlines the “cramdown” provisions for confirming a plan over the objection of a secured class. This provision requires that the secured creditor receive deferred cash payments totaling at least the allowed amount of the secured claim, with interest at a rate that reflects the market rate for the risk of default. In this case, Oceanview Bank’s secured claim is \( \$500,000 \), and the collateral securing this debt is valued at \( \$450,000 \). This means \( \$450,000 \) of the claim is secured, and the remaining \( \$50,000 \) is an unsecured deficiency claim. The plan proposes to surrender the collateral to Oceanview Bank and pay \( \$450,000 \) in cash immediately. This payment satisfies the secured portion of Oceanview Bank’s claim in full, as it equals the value of the collateral. However, it does not provide for the \( \$50,000 \) unsecured deficiency claim. For a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmed over the objection of a secured creditor, the plan must satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A). This typically means the secured creditor must receive at least the value of its secured claim, either through immediate payment of the collateral’s value, retention of the collateral, or deferred payments with interest. By surrendering the collateral and paying only its value, the plan fails to address the unsecured deficiency claim, which is a critical component for cramdown over a secured creditor’s objection. The unsecured claim of Artisan Supplies, being unsecured, would typically be treated differently. In a plan that is not a liquidating plan under Chapter 7 or a specific type of Chapter 11 plan that pays unsecured creditors in full, unsecured creditors often receive a pro rata share of the remaining assets or a distribution less than the full amount of their claims. The question is about the treatment of the secured claim and its deficiency. The plan as proposed fails to provide any value for the unsecured deficiency claim of Oceanview Bank, which is a violation of the cramdown requirements under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A)(i) if Oceanview Bank objects. The correct approach for confirmation over objection would require providing the unsecured deficiency claim with property of a value equal to the allowed amount of such claim, or the debtor would have to ensure that all senior classes of claims are paid in full. Since the plan does not address the \( \$50,000 \) deficiency claim, it cannot be confirmed over Oceanview Bank’s objection. Therefore, the plan is not confirmable in its current form with respect to Oceanview Bank’s secured claim and its deficiency.

The scenario presented involves a Rhode Island business, “Coastal Crafts,” which is experiencing financial distress and considering options under Rhode Island insolvency law. The question probes the specific requirements for a business to qualify for a Chapter 11 reorganization under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, as applied in Rhode Island. A key element for eligibility in Chapter 11, particularly for a business entity, is the ability to propose a plan of reorganization. This plan must demonstrate a feasible path forward, allowing the debtor to continue operations and satisfy creditors over time. Rhode Island insolvency law, while state-specific in some procedural aspects and local court interpretations, fundamentally operates within the framework of federal bankruptcy law. Therefore, the core eligibility criteria for Chapter 11 are consistent nationwide. The ability to pay debts as they become due is a primary indicator of solvency, and a business seeking Chapter 11 protection typically exhibits an inability to do so. However, the law does not mandate that a business must be currently paying all debts as they become due to file for Chapter 11; rather, the purpose of Chapter 11 is to allow a business to restructure its debts and resume paying them. The critical factor is the existence of a viable reorganization plan that can be confirmed by the court. This plan must meet various statutory requirements, including feasibility, good faith, and equitable treatment of creditors. The concept of “reasonable prospect of rehabilitation” is central to the court’s assessment of a Chapter 11 plan’s confirmability. Without this prospect, a reorganization is unlikely to be approved, rendering the Chapter 11 filing potentially unproductive. Therefore, a business must demonstrate that it has a realistic chance of reorganizing its affairs and emerging from bankruptcy as a going concern.

In Rhode Island, the concept of “adequate assurance of future performance” is crucial in executory contracts within bankruptcy proceedings, particularly concerning a debtor’s assumption or rejection. Under 11 U.S.C. § 365, which governs executory contracts and unexpired leases, a debtor must provide adequate assurance to the non-debtor party when assuming an executory contract. This assurance is not a guarantee of performance but rather a reasonable basis for believing that the debtor will be able to satisfy its future obligations under the contract. The standard is objective and context-dependent, requiring a factual assessment of the debtor’s financial condition, business prospects, and the nature of the contract itself. For instance, if a debtor seeks to assume a lease for commercial property, adequate assurance might involve demonstrating sufficient cash flow to cover future rent payments, providing a security deposit, or presenting a viable business plan that supports ongoing operations. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provisions, particularly Article 2 for the sale of goods and Article 2A for leases, also inform what constitutes adequate assurance of performance in non-bankruptcy contexts, and these principles often carry over into bankruptcy analysis. Rhode Island, like other states, adheres to these federal bankruptcy principles. The assurance must be sufficient to alleviate the non-debtor party’s reasonable concerns about receiving the bargained-for performance. This could involve demonstrating the ability to cure any existing defaults, compensate the other party for actual pecuniary loss resulting from defaults, and provide assurances of future performance. The court ultimately determines what constitutes adequate assurance based on the specific facts presented.

The scenario involves a debtor in Rhode Island who has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. A key aspect of Chapter 7 is the liquidation of non-exempt assets to pay creditors. Rhode Island law, like federal bankruptcy law, provides for certain exemptions that protect a debtor’s property from seizure. The question probes the specific treatment of a homestead, which is often a significant asset for a debtor. Rhode Island law, under RIGL § 9-26-1, allows for a homestead exemption. However, the exemption amount and its application can be complex, especially when considering the interplay with federal exemptions if a state has opted out. Rhode Island has not opted out of the federal exemptions, meaning debtors can choose between state and federal exemptions. The specific amount of the Rhode Island homestead exemption is crucial here. RIGL § 9-26-1(a) states that a person can hold exempt from sale on execution the person’s interest in a dwelling house, the land on which it is situated, and the appurtenances, to the value of \$25,000. This value is the maximum amount that can be protected. In this case, the debtor’s homestead has a market value of \$350,000 and an outstanding mortgage of \$200,000. The equity in the property is therefore \$350,000 – \$200,000 = \$150,000. The Rhode Island homestead exemption is \$25,000. This means that \$25,000 of the debtor’s equity is protected. The remaining equity, which is \$150,000 – \$25,000 = \$125,000, is considered non-exempt and is available for the Chapter 7 trustee to liquidate for the benefit of creditors. The trustee would typically sell the property, pay off the mortgage (\$200,000), pay the debtor the exempt amount (\$25,000), and then distribute the remaining proceeds to creditors. Therefore, the amount available to the trustee for distribution to creditors from the homestead is the equity minus the exemption.

The question pertains to the concept of “preferential transfers” within Rhode Island insolvency law, specifically focusing on the look-back period and the elements required to establish such a transfer. Under Rhode Island General Laws § 10-5-12, a preferential transfer occurs when a debtor, within a specified period before bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, transfers property to a creditor for an antecedent debt, thereby allowing that creditor to receive a greater percentage of their debt than other creditors of the same class. The look-back period for ordinary creditors is generally 90 days prior to the filing of a petition for insolvency or bankruptcy. However, for “insiders” (defined broadly to include relatives, business partners, or entities controlled by the debtor), this period is extended to one year. To prove a preferential transfer, the party seeking to avoid the transfer must demonstrate that the transfer was made to or for the benefit of a creditor, for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor, made while the debtor was insolvent, made on or within the applicable preference period, and that enabled such creditor to receive more than such creditor would have received under a chapter 7 liquidation. In the given scenario, the transfer occurred 110 days before the insolvency filing. Since this is beyond the standard 90-day look-back period for non-insiders, and there is no indication that Ms. Albright is an insider under Rhode Island law, the transfer does not meet the temporal requirement for a preferential transfer. The Rhode Island insolvency framework, mirroring federal bankruptcy principles, aims to ensure equitable distribution of assets among creditors. The specific timeframe is a critical element in distinguishing legitimate transactions from those that unfairly disadvantage other creditors. Therefore, the 110-day interval prevents the transfer from being characterized as a preference.

The scenario involves a Rhode Island business, “Oceanview Artisans,” facing insolvency. The core issue is the priority of claims in a potential liquidation under Rhode Island law. Specifically, the question probes the standing of a secured creditor whose collateral has been depleted and a statutory lienholder for unpaid state sales tax. Rhode Island General Laws § 9-29-1 and § 9-29-2, along with general principles of insolvency and bankruptcy law as applied in Rhode Island, dictate the order of priority. A secured creditor, even if their collateral is insufficient to cover the full debt, retains their secured status for the amount realized from the collateral. Any deficiency becomes an unsecured claim. A statutory lien for unpaid taxes, such as sales tax, typically enjoys a high priority, often super-priority, over general unsecured creditors and sometimes even over certain secured creditors depending on the specific statutory language and the timing of the lien’s attachment. In Rhode Island, tax liens are generally afforded significant priority. If the secured creditor’s collateral value is \( \$15,000 \) and their debt is \( \$25,000 \), they are secured for \( \$15,000 \) and unsecured for \( \$10,000 \). The state’s tax lien, for unpaid sales tax, would typically be prioritized above the unsecured portion of the secured creditor’s claim and general unsecured claims. Therefore, the state’s tax lien would be paid from the remaining assets after the secured portion of the first creditor’s claim is satisfied, assuming sufficient assets exist to cover the tax lien. The question asks about the priority of the tax lien relative to the *entire* claim of the secured creditor, implying the secured creditor’s full debt. Given the tax lien’s statutory priority, it would generally be satisfied before any remaining unsecured portion of the secured creditor’s claim. The most accurate characterization of the tax lien’s position is that it has priority over the deficiency claim of the secured creditor.

In Rhode Island, the determination of whether a debtor is eligible for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief hinges on the “means test,” as codified in 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). This test primarily assesses a debtor’s disposable income. Disposable income is calculated by subtracting certain allowed expenses from the debtor’s current monthly income. The calculation involves comparing the debtor’s average monthly income over the six months preceding the bankruptcy filing to the median income for a family of the same size in Rhode Island. If the debtor’s income exceeds the median, the calculation then involves deducting specific, statutorily defined expenses from their current monthly income. These expenses are categorized, including those related to housing, transportation, and other necessities, often based on IRS standards for the district where the debtor resides. For a debtor to pass the means test and be presumed to not have abused the bankruptcy system under Chapter 7, their disposable income, after these deductions, must fall below a certain threshold, or they must demonstrate specific circumstances that warrant relief. The relevant Rhode Island median income figures are periodically updated by the U.S. Trustee Program. For instance, if a debtor’s current monthly income is $6,000, and the Rhode Island median income for their family size is $5,000, they would be subject to a more detailed disposable income calculation. If, after deducting allowed expenses such as mortgage payments, car payments, and other necessary living costs, their remaining disposable income is less than $100 per month, they would generally pass the means test. Conversely, if their disposable income after deductions exceeds $164.58 (a figure that can change), they may be presumed to have abused the system. The specific statutory limits for disposable income that trigger a presumption of abuse are subject to adjustment.

Rhode Island General Laws Chapter 10-7, concerning wrongful death actions, specifically addresses the distribution of damages recovered. When a wrongful death action is brought by an executor or administrator, the statute dictates that the damages recovered shall be for the benefit of the husband or wife and children of the deceased, and if there is no husband or wife, then for the benefit of the next of kin. The statute further clarifies that the amount recovered, after deducting reasonable expenses and charges of suit, shall be distributed as follows: first, to the husband or wife, and then to the children, and if there are no children, to the next of kin. This distribution is made according to the laws of Rhode Island concerning the distribution of intestate estates. Therefore, in a scenario where there is no surviving spouse but there are surviving children and also surviving parents of the deceased, the damages would be distributed solely among the children, as they are the primary beneficiaries under the statute, and parents are not considered next of kin in this context unless there are no surviving children. The statute prioritizes the spouse, then children, and then next of kin. The calculation for distribution is not a numerical one in this context, but rather a determination of the proper beneficiaries according to the statutory hierarchy.

In Rhode Island, a debtor seeking to utilize the protections afforded by Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code must undergo a means test to determine eligibility. The means test, as established by federal law and applied in Rhode Island, compares the debtor’s income to the median income for a household of similar size in Rhode Island. If the debtor’s current monthly income exceeds the median income, they may be presumed to have the ability to pay a portion of their debts, potentially barring them from Chapter 7 relief. The calculation involves determining the debtor’s current monthly income by averaging their income over the six months preceding the filing date. This income is then compared to the applicable median income for Rhode Island. If the debtor’s income is above the median, specific deductions are allowed for certain expenses, such as secured debt payments, priority unsecured debts, and necessary living expenses. The net disposable income after these deductions is then used to determine if the debtor can repay a certain percentage of their unsecured debts. A presumption of abuse arises if the debtor’s disposable income, calculated after allowed deductions, multiplied by 60 months, is greater than or equal to a specified threshold of unsecured debt. For instance, if a debtor’s current monthly income for the past six months averaged $7,000, and the Rhode Island median income for a family of four is $6,500, the debtor’s income exceeds the median. The next step involves calculating disposable income by subtracting allowed expenses. If, after these deductions, the debtor’s monthly disposable income is $300, then over 60 months, this amounts to $300 * 60 = $18,000. If this $18,000 figure is greater than or equal to 25% of their total non-contingent, non-liquidated unsecured debt, a presumption of abuse under the means test arises, potentially leading to dismissal or conversion of the case. This framework ensures that Chapter 7 is primarily available to those with limited means to repay their debts.

The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (RIVTA), codified in Rhode Island General Laws Chapter 6-36, provides a framework for avoiding certain transactions that are deemed fraudulent or detrimental to creditors. A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable under RIVTA if it was made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. This is determined by considering various factors, including whether the transfer or obligation was to an insider, whether the debtor retained possession or control of the asset transferred, whether the transfer was disclosed or concealed, whether the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit, whether the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets, whether the debtor absconded, whether the debtor had received adequate consideration, and whether the debtor was insolvent at the time or became insolvent shortly after. In the scenario presented, the debtor, Mr. Silas Croft, transferred his antique sailboat, valued at $30,000, to his brother for a nominal sum of $1,000, just two months before filing for bankruptcy. Mr. Croft retained no other significant assets. The transfer was not publicly disclosed, and Mr. Croft was facing significant debt and potential litigation from a supplier at the time. The consideration received, $1,000, is clearly not “reasonably equivalent value” for an asset worth $30,000, especially when the debtor was under financial duress. This lack of reasonably equivalent value, coupled with the timing of the transfer relative to the bankruptcy filing, the relationship between the debtor and transferee (brother), the concealment of the transfer, and the fact that it represented substantially all of the debtor’s assets, strongly indicates actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Therefore, under RIVTA, the transfer would be considered voidable by the trustee in bankruptcy. The trustee can seek to recover the sailboat or its value for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.

In Rhode Island, the determination of whether a debtor’s transfer of property constitutes a fraudulent conveyance hinges on several factors, particularly when considering the intent of the debtor and the fairness of the consideration received. Under Rhode Island General Laws § 6-16-1, a transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. This is known as actual fraud. Alternatively, a transfer is fraudulent if the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, or the debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due. This is known as constructive fraud. In assessing actual intent, courts in Rhode Island, like many jurisdictions, consider badges of fraud. These are circumstantial evidence that, while not conclusive on their own, collectively suggest fraudulent intent. Common badges include: (1) transfer of property to an insider; (2) retention of possession or control of the property by the debtor after the transfer; (3) the transfer or obligation was concealed; (4) before the transfer or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been threatened with litigation or that the debtor was a party to a lawsuit; (5) the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets; (6) the debtor absconded; (7) the debtor removed substantially all of the debtor’s assets; (8) the debtor incurred debt shortly before or after the transfer or obligation was incurred; (9) the debtor transferred, concealed, or removed an asset, or incurred an obligation, for the purpose of avoiding liability to a creditor; and (10) the amount of the consideration received was not reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or obligation incurred. The scenario presented involves a debtor transferring a significant asset, a waterfront property, to an insider (their sibling) for an amount substantially below its market value, shortly after receiving a demand letter for an outstanding debt. This scenario strongly implicates several badges of fraud, specifically the transfer to an insider, the inadequate consideration, and the timing of the transfer in relation to the creditor’s demand. The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 6-16) provides the framework for addressing such conveyances. The key is to determine if the transfer was made with intent to defraud or if it meets the criteria for constructive fraud. Given the below-market value consideration and the transfer to a family member after a demand for payment, the transfer is highly likely to be deemed fraudulent.

The scenario presented involves a Rhode Island business, “Oceanfront Enterprises,” seeking relief under the Bankruptcy Code. The core issue is the classification of a debt owed to a former employee, Mr. Silas Croft, for unpaid wages earned prior to the company filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Under the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4), wage claims are afforded priority status. This priority is generally limited to a certain amount per individual for wages earned within 180 days of the bankruptcy filing or the cessation of the debtor’s business, whichever occurs first. In this case, Mr. Croft’s claim for $12,000 in unpaid wages, earned over the six months preceding the filing, falls within this priority provision. The Bankruptcy Code further delineates administrative expenses in § 503(b)(1)(A) and unsecured claims in § 502(a). Priority claims, like Mr. Croft’s wages, are paid before general unsecured claims. The question asks about the *proper classification* of this debt, not its exact payout amount in a hypothetical distribution scenario. Therefore, the most accurate classification is as a priority claim for wages. Other classifications like administrative expense or general unsecured claim would be incorrect because the wage claim has a specific statutory priority that supersedes general unsecured status and is not typically considered an administrative expense unless incurred post-petition.

The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (RIVTA), codified in Rhode Island General Laws Chapter 6-36, governs the avoidance of certain transactions that are deemed fraudulent. A transfer is considered fraudulent if it is made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. Alternatively, a transfer can be deemed fraudulent if the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer, and either the debtor was engaged in a business or transaction for which the debtor’s remaining assets were unreasonably small, or the debtor intended to incur debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due. In the scenario presented, the debtor, Mr. Silas Croft, transferred his sole significant asset, the waterfront property, to his son for a nominal sum. This transfer occurred shortly before the accrual of a substantial debt to Ms. Eleanor Vance. The RIVTA allows creditors to seek avoidance of such transfers. The critical element here is whether the transfer was made with actual intent to defraud or if it falls under the constructive fraud provisions. Given the transfer of the only substantial asset for significantly less than its market value, coupled with the subsequent debt to Ms. Vance, the transfer likely meets the criteria for a fraudulent transfer under RIVTA. The debtor received substantially less than reasonably equivalent value, and the remaining assets were likely rendered unreasonably small, or the debtor was on the cusp of insolvency. Therefore, Ms. Vance, as a creditor, would have a basis to seek avoidance of the transfer of the waterfront property. The specific remedy available to Ms. Vance would be to seek avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy her claim. The RIVTA provides for various remedies, including avoidance of the transfer or an attachment of the asset transferred. The question asks about the *basis* for seeking avoidance, which is the fraudulent nature of the transfer itself.

The scenario presented involves a Rhode Island business, “Ocean State Artisans LLC,” which is undergoing a Chapter 11 reorganization. A critical aspect of such a proceeding is the treatment of secured claims. A secured claim is one that is backed by collateral, in this case, a mortgage on the business’s primary workshop. The mortgage holder, “Providence Savings Bank,” holds a secured claim of \$500,000. The workshop’s current fair market value is \$450,000. Under the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 506(a), a secured claim is to be treated as a secured claim only to the extent of the value of the collateral. The portion of the claim that exceeds the value of the collateral is treated as an unsecured claim. Therefore, Providence Savings Bank has a secured claim in the amount of \$450,000, representing the value of the workshop. The remaining \$50,000 of the debt is considered an unsecured claim, subject to the same treatment as other general unsecured claims in the Chapter 11 plan. This bifurcation of the claim is fundamental to ensuring that the secured creditor receives the value of their collateral, while the unsecured portion is dealt with according to the plan’s provisions for general unsecured creditors, which typically receive a pro rata distribution of what remains after secured and priority claims are satisfied. The debtor’s ability to propose a plan that provides for the secured claim in this manner is a prerequisite for confirmation.

In Rhode Island insolvency law, particularly concerning the distribution of assets in a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding, the concept of “priority of claims” is paramount. This hierarchy dictates the order in which creditors are paid from the debtor’s available assets. Generally, secured creditors, whose claims are backed by specific collateral, have the highest priority with respect to that collateral. Following secured claims, administrative expenses incurred during the insolvency process itself (such as receiver fees, legal costs, and trustee compensation) are typically given a high priority, often referred to as “superpriority” in some contexts, to ensure the orderly administration of the estate. Next in line are often priority unsecured claims, which are statutorily defined and can include wages owed to employees, certain tax obligations, and claims arising from post-petition financing in bankruptcy. Finally, general unsecured creditors, whose claims are not secured by collateral and do not fall into a statutory priority category, receive payment only after all higher-priority claims have been satisfied, and they often receive only a pro rata share of any remaining assets, frequently resulting in a partial recovery or no recovery at all. The specific Rhode Island statutes, such as those found in Title 10 of the Rhode Island General Laws pertaining to insolvency and assignments for the benefit of creditors, and the applicability of federal bankruptcy law (Title 11 of the U.S. Code) where relevant, would govern the precise order and extent of these priorities. The question tests the understanding of this hierarchical structure and the typical placement of administrative expenses within it.

The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, Rhode Island General Laws § 6-16-1 et seq., governs situations where a debtor attempts to transfer assets to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. A transfer is considered fraudulent if it is made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. The Act enumerates several “badges of fraud” that can be considered as evidence of such intent, including (1) the transfer or encumbrance of an asset for less than its reasonably equivalent value, (2) the debtor retaining possession or control of the asset transferred, (3) the transfer being concealed, (4) the debtor filing a petition for liquidation under the United States Bankruptcy Code shortly after the transfer, (5) the transfer being of substantially all of the debtor’s assets, (6) the debtor absconding, (7) the debtor removing or concealing assets, (8) the debtor incurring debt beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as the debts became due, (9) the debtor moving assets out of Rhode Island, and (10) the debtor receiving an asset that was not disclosed to a creditor. In the given scenario, the debtor, Mr. Abernathy, transferred his sole asset, a valuable antique writing desk, to his cousin for a nominal sum, and continued to use the desk. This action directly implicates badges of fraud (1) transfer for less than reasonably equivalent value and (2) debtor retaining possession or control of the asset. Furthermore, the timing of the transfer, just before a substantial judgment was rendered against him, and the fact that the desk was his only significant asset, strongly suggest an intent to place it beyond the reach of the anticipated creditor, Ms. Chen. Therefore, the transfer would likely be deemed voidable by Ms. Chen as a fraudulent transfer under Rhode Island law.

In Rhode Island, the concept of a fraudulent transfer is governed by statutes that aim to protect creditors from debtors who attempt to hide or dissipate assets to avoid legitimate claims. Under Rhode Island General Laws § 6-16-1 et seq., a transfer made by a debtor is voidable by a creditor if it was made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. This intent can be proven through various “badges of fraud,” which are circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent. Examples of badges of fraud include: retention of possession of the property by the debtor, a transfer in anticipation of litigation or execution, a general scheme to conceal or dispose of the property, a transfer for less than the reasonably equivalent value, and a transfer to an insider. In the scenario presented, the transfer of the antique carousel to a closely held corporation, where the debtor and their spouse were the sole shareholders and directors, is particularly suspect. The fact that the transfer occurred shortly after a substantial judgment was entered against the debtor, and that the debtor continued to operate and derive benefit from the carousel through the corporation, strongly suggests an intent to place the asset beyond the reach of the judgment creditor. The transfer for a nominal sum further supports the conclusion that it was not a bona fide transaction for value. Therefore, the judgment creditor in Rhode Island would likely be able to avoid this transfer as fraudulent under the state’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), which is codified in Chapter 16 of Title 6 of the Rhode Island General Laws. The creditor can seek to have the transfer set aside or seek other remedies as provided by law, such as attachment of the property.

The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (RIVTA), codified at Rhode Island General Laws § 6-16-1 et seq., provides the framework for challenging certain transfers of assets made by a debtor. A transfer is presumed fraudulent under RIVTA if it was made to an insider for an antecedent debt and the debtor was insolvent on the date of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. In this scenario, the debtor, a Rhode Island resident, transferred a valuable antique clock to his brother, who is an insider, to satisfy an antecedent debt. The debtor was indeed insolvent at the time of the transfer. The RIVTA allows a creditor to commence an action for relief against such a transfer. The available remedies include avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, or an attachment by the creditor of the asset transferred. Therefore, a creditor seeking to recover from this fraudulent transfer would pursue an action to avoid the transfer or attach the asset.

The scenario presented involves a Rhode Island business, “Oceanview Artisans,” which has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The question concerns the treatment of a secured claim held by “Coastal Bank” for a loan collateralized by Oceanview Artisans’ inventory. In Rhode Island, as under federal bankruptcy law (specifically 11 U.S. Code § 506(a)), a secured claim is a claim that is secured by a security interest in property of the debtor or by a right of setoff. The value of the secured portion of the claim is determined by the value of the collateral. The debtor may propose to keep the collateral by paying the secured creditor the value of the collateral. If the debtor surrenders the collateral, the creditor receives the value of the collateral. If the collateral’s value is less than the amount owed to the creditor, the remaining portion of the debt is treated as an unsecured claim. In this case, Coastal Bank’s claim is for $75,000, and the inventory securing the loan is valued at $50,000. Therefore, the secured portion of Coastal Bank’s claim is limited to the value of the inventory, which is $50,000. The remaining $25,000 ($75,000 – $50,000) of the debt would be an unsecured claim, subject to the pro rata distribution available to unsecured creditors. The question asks for the amount of the secured claim.

The scenario presented involves a business, “Ocean State Artisans,” operating in Rhode Island, which is experiencing severe financial distress. The core issue is whether the company can utilize the Rhode Island Business Reorganization Act, specifically its provisions for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, to restructure its debts and continue operations. Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which is mirrored and supplemented by state-specific procedural rules and interpretations, allows a business to reorganize its affairs, assume or reject executory contracts, and propose a plan of reorganization. The key to a successful Chapter 11 filing, particularly in Rhode Island, involves demonstrating a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation and the ability to propose a confirmable plan. This includes identifying all creditors, classifying them, and proposing how their claims will be treated. The debtor in possession (or a trustee, if appointed) has the exclusive right to propose a plan for a period. The plan must be feasible, proposed in good faith, and provide creditors with at least what they would receive in a Chapter 7 liquidation. The question hinges on the debtor’s ability to meet these requirements, particularly the feasibility of its future operations and the fairness of its proposed debt treatment. Therefore, the most appropriate action for Ocean State Artisans, given its desire to continue operations, is to file a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, as facilitated by Rhode Island’s bankruptcy court procedures. This allows for the comprehensive restructuring of its financial obligations while preserving its business entity.

The scenario presented involves a Rhode Island business, “Oceanic Artisans,” facing significant financial distress. The core issue is determining the appropriate legal framework for addressing their insolvency, specifically concerning the priority of claims in a potential liquidation. Rhode Island General Laws Chapter 34-24, concerning assignments for the benefit of creditors, and federal bankruptcy law, particularly Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, are the relevant legal regimes. In a state assignment for the benefit of creditors, the priority of claims is generally governed by the assignment statute itself and any applicable state law regarding liens and preferences. Federal bankruptcy law, however, establishes a comprehensive scheme of priorities for claims in a Chapter 7 liquidation, including secured claims, administrative expenses, wage claims, and general unsecured claims. The question asks about the priority of a claim for unpaid rent to a commercial landlord. In Rhode Island, under a state assignment, a landlord’s claim for rent might be treated differently than under federal bankruptcy. Specifically, while a landlord may have a lien on the tenant’s property for unpaid rent in certain circumstances under Rhode Island law, federal bankruptcy law provides a specific priority for certain rent claims. Under 11 U.S. Code § 507(a)(7) (as it existed prior to recent amendments, and considering general principles of priority), certain post-petition rent claims incurred by a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 case could have administrative priority. However, for a straight Chapter 7 liquidation, the priority of a landlord’s claim for pre-petition rent is generally as a general unsecured claim, unless the landlord has a valid, perfected security interest in the debtor’s assets that secures the rent obligation, or if the rent claim falls under specific statutory exceptions for certain types of claims. Given that the question specifies a landlord’s claim for unpaid rent, and without information suggesting a perfected security interest or other specific statutory priority under Rhode Island law that would supersede federal bankruptcy priorities, the claim would typically be treated as a general unsecured claim in a federal bankruptcy proceeding. A state assignment for the benefit of creditors, while an alternative to bankruptcy, would still likely be influenced by the principles of priority found in federal law if the assets were later transferred to a federal bankruptcy proceeding or if the state law mirrored federal priorities. However, the question asks about the priority under the *most favorable* framework for the landlord, implying a comparison. In a state assignment, a landlord’s claim for unpaid rent, especially if it relates to the use of the premises prior to the assignment, is often treated as a general unsecured claim. However, Rhode Island law does not grant landlords a super-priority for rent arrears in an assignment for the benefit of creditors that would typically elevate it above secured claims or certain priority unsecured claims like wages. Federal bankruptcy law, while also treating most pre-petition rent as unsecured, has a structured priority scheme. The most favorable treatment for a landlord is typically having a perfected security interest, which would place them ahead of unsecured creditors. Absent such a security interest, the landlord’s claim for unpaid rent in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy would be a general unsecured claim. If the state assignment provides any specific statutory preference for landlords beyond what is available in federal bankruptcy, that would be more favorable. However, Rhode Island’s assignment law does not typically create such a broad super-priority for landlords over all other unsecured creditors. The question is designed to test the understanding of how different insolvency regimes might treat a common claim. In the absence of a perfected security interest, a landlord’s claim for unpaid rent in Rhode Island, whether in a state assignment or federal bankruptcy, is generally treated as a general unsecured claim. However, the question asks about the *most favorable* treatment. If the landlord has a perfected security interest in specific assets of Oceanic Artisans that secure the rent obligation, that secured claim would have the highest priority. Without such a security interest, both state assignment and federal bankruptcy would likely treat the rent claim as unsecured. The critical nuance is that federal bankruptcy law has a codified priority system, whereas state assignments are governed by state statutes that might be less defined or might defer to federal principles. The question is about the landlord’s claim for unpaid rent, which is a common point of contention. In Rhode Island, while landlords have certain rights, they do not typically possess a statutory super-priority for rent arrears in an assignment for the benefit of creditors that would place them above all other unsecured creditors without a specific lien. Federal bankruptcy law provides a clear hierarchy, with secured claims at the top. If the landlord has a security interest perfected under Rhode Island law (e.g., a UCC-1 financing statement covering fixtures or leasehold improvements that secures the rent obligation), this secured claim would be paid before general unsecured claims. Therefore, the most favorable treatment for the landlord would be to have their claim recognized as secured. If no security interest exists, the claim is generally treated as a general unsecured claim in both state assignments and federal bankruptcy. The question, however, is phrased to elicit the highest possible priority. The calculation is conceptual, not numerical. The priority of claims in insolvency is a hierarchical structure. 1. Secured Claims: Claims backed by collateral. The landlord would be most favored if they had a perfected security interest in specific assets of Oceanic Artisans securing the rent. 2. Priority Unsecured Claims: Specific categories of unsecured claims that receive preferential payment under federal bankruptcy law (e.g., certain taxes, wage claims). 3. General Unsecured Claims: All other unsecured claims, including most pre-petition rent claims without a security interest. In Rhode Island, a landlord’s claim for unpaid rent is typically treated as a general unsecured claim unless they have secured the rent through a separate security agreement or a lien perfected under Rhode Island law. Federal bankruptcy law, specifically 11 U.S. Code § 507, outlines the priority of claims. While there are priorities for certain administrative expenses and other specific claims, a landlord’s pre-petition rent claim, absent a security interest, is generally a general unsecured claim. The most favorable position for the landlord is to have their claim treated as a secured claim, meaning they have a valid, perfected lien on specific property of the debtor that secures the rent obligation. This would place them ahead of all unsecured creditors. If no such security interest exists, their claim would be treated as a general unsecured claim, which is the least favorable position among the priority categories. Therefore, the most favorable treatment is recognition as a secured claim.

The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 6-36) provides remedies for creditors when a debtor engages in fraudulent transfers. A transfer is considered fraudulent if it is made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or if it is a constructively fraudulent transfer. For a constructively fraudulent transfer, the debtor must have received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer, and either been insolvent at the time or become insolvent as a result of the transfer. In this scenario, the transfer of the waterfront property from Mariner’s Holdings LLC to Salty Dog Enterprises occurred when Mariner’s Holdings LLC was already facing significant financial distress, as evidenced by its inability to meet payroll and its pending tax liabilities. The property was valued at $1,500,000, but the sale price was only $750,000. This indicates a lack of reasonably equivalent value. Furthermore, the transfer occurred while Mariner’s Holdings LLC was insolvent. Therefore, under R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-04(a)(2), the transfer is voidable by a creditor. The remedy available to a creditor in such a situation, as outlined in R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-07, includes avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim. Since the creditor, Narragansett Bay Credit Union, has a judgment of $400,000, they can seek to avoid the transfer of the waterfront property to recover that amount. The creditor’s right to avoid the transfer is not extinguished simply because the property was subsequently sold to a good faith purchaser for value, as the creditor can still seek a remedy against the initial transferee, Salty Dog Enterprises, or potentially seek to recover the value of the asset transferred if the property is no longer available. However, the question asks about the creditor’s primary recourse against the property itself or its immediate recipient. The most direct remedy is to avoid the transfer to Salty Dog Enterprises.

The scenario presented involves a Rhode Island business, “Ocean State Artisans,” seeking to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. A critical aspect of Chapter 11 is the debtor’s ability to propose a plan of reorganization. This plan must classify claims and interests, and each class must accept the plan. For a class of impaired secured claims to accept the plan, at least one impaired creditor in that class must accept the plan, and the plan must provide that creditors in that class receive property with a present value, as of the effective date of the plan, of at least the value of their collateral. For a class of impaired unsecured claims to accept the plan, at least one impaired creditor in that class must accept the plan, and the plan must provide that creditors in that class receive property of a value, as of the effective date of the plan, not less than the amount that would be paid to such creditor on account of such claim if the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The question focuses on the requirement for confirmation of a plan when a class of impaired claims rejects it, specifically under the concept of “cramdown.” In Rhode Island, as with federal bankruptcy law, a plan can be confirmed over the objection of an impaired class if the plan “does not discriminate unfairly” against that class and is “fair and equitable” with respect to that class. For a class of impaired secured claims, being fair and equitable means either retaining the collateral, providing a deferred cash payments with a present value equal to the secured claim’s value, or the sale of the collateral free and clear of the lien with the lien attaching to the proceeds. For a class of impaired unsecured claims, being fair and equitable means either receiving property with a value equal to the full amount of their claims, or if the debtor is not liquidating, the creditors in that class must receive property of a value as of the effective date of the plan not less than the amount that would be paid to such creditor on account of such claim if the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7. In this case, the unsecured creditors are to receive 60% of their claims. If the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7, the unsecured creditors would receive 75% of their claims. Since the plan proposes to pay less than what would be received in a Chapter 7 liquidation, the plan fails the “fair and equitable” test for the impaired unsecured class. Therefore, the plan cannot be confirmed over their objection.

The Rhode Island Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-1 et seq.) provides remedies for creditors when a debtor engages in fraudulent transfers. A transfer is considered fraudulent if it is made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. Alternatively, a transfer can be deemed constructively fraudulent if the debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the asset, and either was engaged in a business or transaction for which the remaining assets were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, or intended to incur debts beyond their ability to pay as they became due. In this scenario, the transfer of the antique clock to Mr. Abernathy for $1,000, when its fair market value is established at $15,000, clearly indicates a lack of reasonably equivalent value. Furthermore, given that Ms. Periwinkle was already facing significant financial distress, evidenced by her inability to pay her rent and impending foreclosure, the transfer can be seen as an attempt to shield assets from her creditors. Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-16-7, a creditor can seek remedies such as avoidance of the transfer, an attachment by the creditor of the asset transferred or other property of the initial transferee, or an injunction against further disposition of the asset by the debtor or transferee. The most direct remedy to recover the value of the asset for the benefit of the creditor, especially when the asset may have already been further transferred or dissipated, is a judgment for the value of the asset. The statute specifies that if a creditor seeks to avoid the transfer, the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset, as adjusted for any payments made or the value of any obligation incurred by the transferee, against the initial transferee or any subsequent transferee. Therefore, Ms. Periwinkle’s creditor can seek a judgment for the fair market value of the clock, which is $15,000, from Mr. Abernathy.

The scenario presented involves a Rhode Island business, “Ocean State Artisans,” which is undergoing liquidation under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The question pertains to the priority of claims in such a proceeding, specifically concerning administrative expenses and certain types of unsecured claims. Rhode Island insolvency law, like federal bankruptcy law, establishes a hierarchy for distributing assets. Administrative expenses, which are costs incurred by the bankruptcy estate after the filing of the petition, such as trustee fees, legal fees, and other professional services necessary for the administration of the estate, are generally given a high priority. In this case, the fees for the Chapter 7 trustee and the legal counsel for the trustee fall under this category. These are typically considered first-priority claims under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(2). Following administrative expenses, the law distinguishes between different classes of unsecured claims. Rhode Island law, aligning with federal bankruptcy statutes, places certain governmental claims, such as those for taxes, in a priority position, but generally below administrative expenses. Specifically, priority tax claims under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8) are a distinct category. The claim for unpaid sales tax owed to the State of Rhode Island, which accrued before the bankruptcy filing, would fall into this category. General unsecured claims, which do not fit into any of the priority categories, are paid last, pro rata, from any remaining funds. Therefore, the trustee’s fees and legal expenses, being administrative expenses, are paid before the state’s claim for pre-petition sales tax, and both are paid before any general unsecured claims from suppliers. The calculation of the exact amounts distributed is not required, as the question focuses on the order of priority. The trustee’s fees and legal counsel fees, as administrative expenses, would be paid first. Subsequently, the priority tax claim for sales tax would be addressed. Finally, any remaining assets would be distributed to general unsecured creditors.

The scenario involves a debtor in Rhode Island seeking to discharge certain debts in bankruptcy. Under the United States Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S. Code § 523, certain debts are generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy. This section outlines categories of debts that remain obligations of the debtor even after a bankruptcy discharge. These typically include debts for certain taxes, debts arising from fraud or false pretenses, debts for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity, debts for domestic support obligations, and debts for certain educational loans. The question asks which of the listed debts would *not* be dischargeable in a Rhode Island bankruptcy proceeding, assuming the debtor is filing under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, where these provisions are applicable. A debt for a luxury yacht purchased with a fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the debtor’s financial status falls under the category of debts obtained by fraud or false pretenses, as enumerated in § 523(a)(2). This category of debt is specifically excluded from discharge. Conversely, a personal loan from a credit union, a retail store credit card balance, and medical bills incurred prior to filing are generally dischargeable debts, provided they do not fall into other non-dischargeable categories not mentioned in the prompt. The critical element is the fraudulent acquisition of the yacht, making that debt non-dischargeable.