Legal Opinion
In re Tallerico
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California
Decided June 30, 2015No. Case No. 15-22117-C-7PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge:
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003(c) is invalid to the extent it assigns the burden of proof on an objection to a state-law claim of exemption in a manner contrary to state law.
The Bankruptcy Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2075, forbids rules that alter substantive rights. The Supreme Court clarified in Raleigh v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15, 20-21, 120 S.Ct. 1951, 147 L.Ed.2d 13 (2000), that burden of proof is substantive, not procedural. It follows that Rule 4003(c), which was first adopted in 1973 on the assumption that burden of proof was…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Butner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Taylor v. Freeland & KronzSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Raleigh v. Illinois Department of RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- In Re: Nell Carter, Debtor. Nell Carter v. Peter C. Anderson, Chapter 7trustee,appelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Wolfe v. Jacobson (In Re Jacobson)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Diaz v. Kosmala (In Re Diaz)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Whatley v. Stijakovich-Santilli (In Re Stijakovich-Santilli)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- In re Caesars Entm't Operating Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
- In re GilmanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 2016
- In re SinclairUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 2017
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.