Helbling v. Thomas (In re Thomas)

Sixth Circuit

Helbling v. Thomas (In re Thomas)

510 B.R. 113

CourtBankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 2014

DocketBAP No. 13-8052

StatusPublished

This text of 510 B.R. 113 (Helbling v. Thomas (In re Thomas)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helbling v. Thomas (In re Thomas), 510 B.R. 113 (bap6 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[114]*114OPINION

MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The issue before the Panel on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in holding that real property transferred in error to Debtor by his Father pre-petition was impressed with a constructive trust as a matter of law, and thus, the bankruptcy estate had no interest in the real property. The Panel reviews this conclusion of law de novo. See In re Booth, 260 B.R. 281, 285 (6th Cir. BAP 2001); First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Eubanks (In re Eubanks), 219 B.R. 468, 469 (6th Cir. BAP 1998) (citation omitted). After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court did not err. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy court’s well-reasoned opinion entered on November 12, 2013, Helbling v. Thomas, (In re Thomas), Ch. 7 Case No. 12-14916, Adv. No. 13-1012 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2013) ECF No. 66, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[114]*114OPINION

MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The issue before the Panel on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in holding that real property transferred in error to Debtor by his Father pre-petition was impressed with a constructive trust as a matter of law, and thus, the bankruptcy estate had no interest in the real property. The Panel reviews this conclusion of law de novo. See In re Booth, 260 B.R. 281, 285 (6th Cir. BAP 2001); First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Eubanks (In re Eubanks), 219 B.R. 468, 469 (6th Cir. BAP 1998) (citation omitted). After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court did not err. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy court’s well-reasoned opinion entered on November 12, 2013, Helbling v. Thomas, (In re Thomas), Ch. 7 Case No. 12-14916, Adv. No. 13-1012 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2013) ECF No. 66, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 B.R. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helbling-v-thomas-in-re-thomas-bap6-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack