Mark Weisbart v. Mary Shankles

Fifth Circuit

Mark Weisbart v. Mary Shankles

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

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 12, 2014·No. 13-40387·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Pincite

554 Fed. Appx. 300 (Mark Weisbart v. Mary Shankles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related