Pletz v. United States (In Re Pletz)

D. Oregon

Pletz v. United States (In Re Pletz)

234 B.R. 800, 83 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 628, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21209, 1998 WL 986247

CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

DocketCase No. 397-30506-ELP13, Adversary No. 98-01357

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 B.R. 800 (Pletz v. United States (In Re Pletz)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pletz v. United States (In Re Pletz), 234 B.R. 800, 83 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 628, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21209, 1998 WL 986247 (D. Or. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

MARSH, District Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a bankruptcy court’s decision regarding the application of a tax lien to his value in real property owned jointly with his wife. The bankruptcy court refused to confirm appellant’s Chapter 13 reorganization plan when it sustained the IRS’ objection based upon the appellant’s value in his property. Appellant claims that the IRS has no lien against his value in the property, that the court erred in valuing his interest in the property and that the court erred in admitting expert testimony from the IRS.

My review of Judge Perris’ legal conclusion regarding the application of the lien is de novo. In Re Chabot, 992 F.2d 891, 892 (9th Cir.1993). My review of *801 Judge Perris’ factual determination regarding the value of the property is for clear error. Id. Review for the admission of expert testimony is for abuse of discretion. Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir.1998), petition for cert. filed Nov. 24, 1998.

I have carefully reviewed Judge Perris’ November 25, 1997 opinion and March 30, 1998 letter decision. I find that she properly interpreted Oregon law and correctly concluded that the IRS’ lien attached to appellant’s joint tenancy interest in his real property. I find appellant’s reliance upon United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983) misplaced as that decision relied upon the Court’s interpretation of-Texas law.

I also find that Judge Perris fairly valued the appellant’s interest in real property and appropriately divided that interest with that of his spouse. The court expressly noted and addressed the weaknesses of both parties’ experts and gave limited weight to both. I find that she reached a fair valuation.

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER

MARSH, District Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a bankruptcy court’s decision regarding the application of a tax lien to his value in real property owned jointly with his wife. The bankruptcy court refused to confirm appellant’s Chapter 13 reorganization plan when it sustained the IRS’ objection based upon the appellant’s value in his property. Appellant claims that the IRS has no lien against his value in the property, that the court erred in valuing his interest in the property and that the court erred in admitting expert testimony from the IRS.

My review of Judge Perris’ legal conclusion regarding the application of the lien is de novo. In Re Chabot, 992 F.2d 891, 892 (9th Cir.1993). My review of *801 Judge Perris’ factual determination regarding the value of the property is for clear error. Id. Review for the admission of expert testimony is for abuse of discretion. Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir.1998), petition for cert. filed Nov. 24, 1998.

I have carefully reviewed Judge Perris’ November 25, 1997 opinion and March 30, 1998 letter decision. I find that she properly interpreted Oregon law and correctly concluded that the IRS’ lien attached to appellant’s joint tenancy interest in his real property. I find appellant’s reliance upon United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983) misplaced as that decision relied upon the Court’s interpretation of-Texas law.

I also find that Judge Perris fairly valued the appellant’s interest in real property and appropriately divided that interest with that of his spouse. The court expressly noted and addressed the weaknesses of both parties’ experts and gave limited weight to both. I find that she reached a fair valuation.

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 B.R. 800, 83 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 628, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21209, 1998 WL 986247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pletz-v-united-states-in-re-pletz-ord-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack