In Re Johnson

61 B.R. 858, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5943
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota
DecidedJune 4, 1986
Docket19-40036
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 61 B.R. 858 (In Re Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Johnson, 61 B.R. 858, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5943 (S.D. 1986).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PEDER K. ECKER, Bankruptcy Judge.

Introduction

This matter is before the Court on an objection to claimed exempt property filed on behalf of the City of Colton (“City”), Colton, South Dakota, by Attorney Rick A. Yarnall on February 19, 1985. The City substantively alleges that: 1) the debtor’s May, 1984, filing of a government land patent, which was issued to an unrelated remote grantor almost one hundred years earlier (1886), does not constitute a reissuing of a land patent thereby qualifying *860 certain real property for exemptions provided by 43 U.S.C. § 175; and 2) the debtor may not properly claim a homestead exemption under S.D.C.L. Ch. 43-31 because it does not meet necessary statutory requirements. Attorney Doug Cummings represented Caroline Johnson, and a hearing was held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on November 21, 1985.

Background

Debtor filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on October 25, 1984. According to her B Schedules and hearing arguments, the debtor has claimed a certain real property as exempt under either federal or state law in the amount of $8,350. This amount is also equal to the property’s estimated fair market value. This property, which includes a house and lot, is known as follows:

“Lot 4, Block 7, of the First Addition to the City of Colton, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, according to the recorded plat thereof, also known as 406 South Main.”

The debtor, who is approximately ninety years old and presently staying at a nursing home, did not attend the hearing. Her daughter, Mrs. Shirley M. Corbly, spoke on her behalf. 1

The City and Mrs. Corbly have been locked in legal combat for over six years. Apparently, it all began in late 1979 when Mrs. Corbly built an addition onto the house without first obtaining a building permit. At the hearing, Mrs. Corbly represented that the house needed remodeling to accommodate wheelchairs and the addition was needed for extra living space. Coupled with a notice of lis pendens filing, the City brought a civil action against Clinton Johnson (debtor’s now deceased husband), Richard Corbly (Shirley’s husband), Shirley Corbly, and the debtor. The state court subsequently enjoined use or occupancy of the addition and ordered its immediate removal. After an unsuccessful state supreme court appeal and rehearing, Mrs. Corbly refused to abide by the state court’s removal order and she was found in contempt. At a later February 25,1983, “punishment” hearing, the City received a judgment against Mrs. Corbly in the amount of $7,824.90 plus costs. Shortly thereafter, the City imposed this judgment against the property.

The chain of title to this property reflects an active recent history. Included are the following transactions:

*861

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

Related

NMI Paul v. Allred (In re NMI Paul)
488 B.R. 104 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 2011
In re Burns
218 B.R. 897 (N.D. Indiana, 1998)
In Re Bennett
192 B.R. 584 (D. Maine, 1996)
In Re Nelson
123 B.R. 993 (D. South Dakota, 1991)
In Re Brent
68 B.R. 893 (D. Vermont, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 B.R. 858, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnson-sdb-1986.