In Re Lois Yvonne Sisemore, A/K/A Lois Yvonne Sisemore Jabri, Bankrupt. St. Clair Newbern, Iii, Trustee v. Lois Yvonne Sisemore

Fifth Circuit

In Re Lois Yvonne Sisemore, A/K/A Lois Yvonne Sisemore Jabri, Bankrupt. St. Clair Newbern, Iii, Trustee v. Lois Yvonne Sisemore

602 F.2d 742, 21 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 215, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11781, 5 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 847, 21 Collier Bankr. Cas. 215

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 17, 1979

Docket79-1709

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 602 F.2d 742 (In Re Lois Yvonne Sisemore, A/K/A Lois Yvonne Sisemore Jabri, Bankrupt. St. Clair Newbern, Iii, Trustee v. Lois Yvonne Sisemore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Lois Yvonne Sisemore, A/K/A Lois Yvonne Sisemore Jabri, Bankrupt. St. Clair Newbern, Iii, Trustee v. Lois Yvonne Sisemore, 602 F.2d 742, 21 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 215, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11781, 5 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 847, 21 Collier Bankr. Cas. 215 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this case we affirm the district court’s decision that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding: first, that the late filing of objections to the Trustee’s Report of Exempt Property did not prevent consideration of those objections under the circumstances of this case, i.e., physical incapacity of the attorney, lack of surprise to the trustee or prejudice to the administration of the estate, and the fact that the litigated vehicle remained with the bankrupt at all times, see Rules Bankr.P. 403(e), 924 and Advisory Committee’s Note; and second, both the automobile and the jeep used in connection with maintaining “large areas and landscape, hedges, flower beds and mowing grass” are exempt under Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3836(a)(3) (Vernon). See Hickman v. Hickman, 149 Tex. 439, 234 S.W.2d 410 (1950); Meritz v. Palmer, 266 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1959). We need not decide whether two identical automobiles of identical use would be exempt under that statute.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this case we affirm the district court’s decision that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding: first, that the late filing of objections to the Trustee’s Report of Exempt Property did not prevent consideration of those objections under the circumstances of this case, i.e., physical incapacity of the attorney, lack of surprise to the trustee or prejudice to the administration of the estate, and the fact that the litigated vehicle remained with the bankrupt at all times, see Rules Bankr.P. 403(e), 924 and Advisory Committee’s Note; and second, both the automobile and the jeep used in connection with maintaining “large areas and landscape, hedges, flower beds and mowing grass” are exempt under Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3836(a)(3) (Vernon). See Hickman v. Hickman, 149 Tex. 439, 234 S.W.2d 410 (1950); Meritz v. Palmer, 266 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1959). We need not decide whether two identical automobiles of identical use would be exempt under that statute.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 F.2d 742, 21 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 215, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11781, 5 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 847, 21 Collier Bankr. Cas. 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lois-yvonne-sisemore-aka-lois-yvonne-sisemore-jabri-bankrupt-st-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack