Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Andrew Westhem and Emily Westhem, Bankrupts. C. Douglas Wikle v. Andrew Westhem and Emily Westhem

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 23, 1981No. 79-3127Published

1DissentFloyd R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge

It is with considerable reluctance and trepidation that I dissent from my. colleagues on an issue of California law, but in my view a replacement diamond engagement ring valued in excess of $3000 should not be included within California’s bankruptcy exemption as “necessary ... wearing apparel, ordinarily and reasonably necessary to, and personally used by, the debt- or and his resident family.” Cal.Civ.Proc. Code § 690.1.

The replacement diamond ring was purchased for $6800 over thirteen years ago with the insurance proceeds received after the theft of Mrs. Westhem’s heirloom engagement ring.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re LeechCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
  2. In Re Estate of MillingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  3. McCarthy v. StandishCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API