  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Aug. 25, 2006) (Claim that debtor failed to issue its common stock in exchange for claimant's stock in another company as required by prepetition agreement was properly subordinated under S 510(b).)
In re Ford, 492 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. May 17, 2007) (Bankruptcy court properly denied debtor's request to amend schedules to disclose a personal injury settlement and claim the proceeds as exempt. Since the debtor intentionally concealed the claim and the concealment prejudiced creditors and the trustee's administration of the estate, the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the amendment.)
In re Benn, 491 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. July 10, 2007) (Missouri statute implementing opt-out from the federal scheme of Bankruptcy Code exemptions pursuant to S 522(b)(2) does not create additional substantive exemptions of property. The proper interpretation of the statute's provision of an exemption for "any property that is exempt from attachment and execution" pursuant to non-bankruptcy law refers to existing exemption schemes. Despite the debtor's "plain meaning" argument to the contrary, the provision does not mean that property not subject to attachment and execution in general, such as the debtor's unclaimed tax refund being held by the IRS, is exempt from the bankruptcy estate.)
In re Chew, 496 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. July 30, 2007) (State court determinations relating to a state law objection to a state law exemption may have preclusive effect in a bankruptcy case. In Chapter 7 case, debtors claimed state law homestead exemption. Creditors objected, arguing a portion of the property claimed as exempt was subject to a constructive trust in favor of creditors and, thus, did not belong to the debtors. Pre-petition, these same creditors had brought state court litigation asserting the same constructive trust theory, but that litigation was dismissed for failure to state a claim. This determination precluded creditors' objection in the bankruptcy case.)
In re Eagle, 373 B.R. 609 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2007) (After fraudulently obtaining cashier's check from bank to purchase real estate and then filing for bankruptcy, pro se debtor appealed orders: (1) sustaining creditor bank's objection to the debtor's claimed homestead exemption in real property and
(2) the failure of the bankruptcy court to appoint counsel to represent the debtor. The appellate court affirmed both orders. As to the first order, the court held that since the debtor had sold the real property pre-petition, he could not claim a homestead in property he did not own. As to the second
