By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction The Supreme Court unanimously held on January 14 that an order denying stay relief was final in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.1 Thus, the creditor should have appealed the denial instead of waiting until later in the case to seek again to pursue its pre-bankruptcy litigation against...
From the Editor – Property of Estate and Exemptions
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Georgia’s bankruptcy-specific exemptions were constitutional. Georgia’s treatment of bankruptcy debtors differently from other debtors by establishment of bankruptcy- specific exemptions does not violate Georgia’s Equal Protection Clause nor the Bankruptcy Clause of the United States Constitution. Bankruptcy uniformity does not require an opt-out state to treat bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy debtors exactly alike. Section 522 does not permit a bankruptcy debtor to use a state’s exemption statute when the state has provided it is unavailable. McFarland v. Wallace (In re McFarland)
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
The Student Loan Solution
2 Million ITINs Set to Expire in 2019; To Avoid Refund Delays Apply Soon
Supreme Court Revisits Finality of Orders in Bankruptcy: Comment on Ritzen and Review of “Finality”
Critical Case Comment
Creditors’ Rights and Debtors’ Protections at the Intersection of Consumer Bankruptcy and UCC Article 9 – Part IV
Still Trying to Apply Taggart: Fourth Circuit Vacates Beckhart v. Newrez, LLC
Meet a New AND Newish Trustee
ZOOM – Instructions/Directions from the Office of Ronda Winnecour, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee*
Fond Farewell to Danny O’Brien
Possible Solution for Student Loans?