Mark Weisbart v. Mary Shankles

Fifth Circuit

Mark Weisbart v. Mary Shankles

554 Fed. Appx. 300, 554 F. App'x 300, 2014 WL 541321

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 2014

Docket13-40387

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 554 Fed. Appx. 300 (Mark Weisbart v. Mary Shankles) 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

Mark Weisbart v. Mary Shankles, 554 Fed. Appx. 300, 554 F. App'x 300, 2014 WL 541321 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Because we agree with the bankruptcy court that Mary Harp Shankles obtained a “vested economic interest” in her homestead property only by the 2009 distribution deed, we affirm. Wallace v. Rogers (In re Rogers), 513 F.3d 212, 223 (5th Cir.2008). We further agree with the bankruptcy court that any relevant prior deeds, conveyances, or agreements were rendered null and void ab initio, and that parties cannot contract around the 11 *301 U.S.C. § 522(p)(l) 1,215-day “look-back” period.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Because we agree with the bankruptcy court that Mary Harp Shankles obtained a “vested economic interest” in her homestead property only by the 2009 distribution deed, we affirm. Wallace v. Rogers (In re Rogers), 513 F.3d 212, 223 (5th Cir.2008). We further agree with the bankruptcy court that any relevant prior deeds, conveyances, or agreements were rendered null and void ab initio, and that parties cannot contract around the 11 *301 U.S.C. § 522(p)(l) 1,215-day “look-back” period.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 Fed. Appx. 300, 554 F. App'x 300, 2014 WL 541321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-weisbart-v-mary-shankles-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack