In Re Kenneth L. Kasden, Debtor. Steiner and Saffer v. Kenneth L. Kasden

Eighth Circuit

In Re Kenneth L. Kasden, Debtor. Steiner and Saffer v. Kenneth L. Kasden

84 F.3d 1104, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13216, 1996 WL 291041

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1996

Docket95-3078

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 84 F.3d 1104 (In Re Kenneth L. Kasden, Debtor. Steiner and Saffer v. Kenneth L. Kasden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Kenneth L. Kasden, Debtor. Steiner and Saffer v. Kenneth L. Kasden, 84 F.3d 1104, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13216, 1996 WL 291041 (8th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Kasden filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in August 1994, and identified property located in Edi-na, Minnesota as exempt homestead property. Steiner and Saffer, which is a judgment creditor of Kasden, filed an objection to his claimed homestead exemption, 1 arguing that Kasden had lost his homestead exemption to the property when he ceased to occupy it for more than six months without filing notice as required by Minnesota Statute § 510.07. Kasden has not resided on the property since it was damaged extensively by fire in November 1993 and has not filed a homestead notice with the county recorder.

The bankruptcy court denied the objection of Steiner and Saffer on two grounds: that a person forced from homestead property due to casualty has not ceased to occupy it within the meaning of the statute, and that Kasden physically occupied the property, albeit not as a residence. The district court 2 reversed and remanded on the basis that Minnesota law does not recognize a casualty exception to statutory abandonment, Joy v. Cooperative Oil Ass’n, 360 N.W.2d 363, 366 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (en banc), review denied (Minn. March 6, 1985) (owner absent from property more than six months due to destruction of premises by fire lost homestead exemption when he failed to file notice), and requires that a property owner occupy the property as a residence to maintain a homestead exemption.

After careful review of the record before us and the arguments raised, we conclude the district court correctly resolved the issues. The order is affirmed. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The bankruptcy trustee also filed an objection to the claimed exemption, but is not a party to this appeal.

2

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Kasden filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in August 1994, and identified property located in Edi-na, Minnesota as exempt homestead property. Steiner and Saffer, which is a judgment creditor of Kasden, filed an objection to his claimed homestead exemption, 1 arguing that Kasden had lost his homestead exemption to the property when he ceased to occupy it for more than six months without filing notice as required by Minnesota Statute § 510.07. Kasden has not resided on the property since it was damaged extensively by fire in November 1993 and has not filed a homestead notice with the county recorder.

The bankruptcy court denied the objection of Steiner and Saffer on two grounds: that a person forced from homestead property due to casualty has not ceased to occupy it within the meaning of the statute, and that Kasden physically occupied the property, albeit not as a residence. The district court 2 reversed and remanded on the basis that Minnesota law does not recognize a casualty exception to statutory abandonment, Joy v. Cooperative Oil Ass’n, 360 N.W.2d 363, 366 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (en banc), review denied (Minn. March 6, 1985) (owner absent from property more than six months due to destruction of premises by fire lost homestead exemption when he failed to file notice), and requires that a property owner occupy the property as a residence to maintain a homestead exemption.

After careful review of the record before us and the arguments raised, we conclude the district court correctly resolved the issues. The order is affirmed. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The bankruptcy trustee also filed an objection to the claimed exemption, but is not a party to this appeal.

2

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 F.3d 1104, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13216, 1996 WL 291041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-l-kasden-debtor-steiner-and-saffer-v-kenneth-l-kasden-ca8-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack