Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alderman v. Martinson (In Re Alderman)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 29, 1996No. BAP No. MT-95-1721-AsMeHi. Bankruptcy No. 92-11232-7Published

1Dissent

*112HIGDON, Bankruptcy Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent because I believe that the bankruptcy court entered an order during the Chapter 13 proceeding which, upon conversion of the case to Chapter 7, was res judica-ta as to the matter of the value of the debtors’ homestead exemption in the Chapter 7.

At the time the debtors filed their Chapter 13 petition they claimed a homestead exemption in the partnership property in which Mr. Alderman owned an interest.2 They claimed the value of the exemption as the “maximum allowed” on their Schedule B^f. The Chapter 13 trustee did not object to this exemption…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Katchen v. LandySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  4. In Re Irwin Hyman Janice Hyman, Debtors. Irwin Hyman Janice Hyman v. Gary A. Plotkin, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  5. Magallanes v. Williams (In Re Magallanes)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1988

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API