Slone v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

Sixth Circuit

Slone v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

510 B.R. 113

CourtBankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 2014

DocketBAP No. 13-8047

StatusPublished

This text of 510 B.R. 113 (Slone v. Anderson (In re Anderson)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slone v. Anderson (In re Anderson), 510 B.R. 113 (bap6 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

GEORGE W. EMERSON, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

The issue before the Panel on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in avoiding the transfer of $74,102.60 to 1st National Cash Refund pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 549 and ordering recovery of transferred property from 1st National Cash Refund and Carl Woodford pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutes of limitation found in 11 U.S.C. § 549 and 11 U.S.C. § 550 were equitably tolled and that the bankruptcy court properly found that the trustee had power to avoid and recover the transferred property. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion entered on September 9, 2013, Ruth A. Slone v. Jason E. Anderson, et al., (In re Anderson), Ch. 7 Case No. 10-30064, Adv. No. 10-3361 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2013) ECF No. 97, we affirm.

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

OPINION

GEORGE W. EMERSON, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

The issue before the Panel on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in avoiding the transfer of $74,102.60 to 1st National Cash Refund pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 549 and ordering recovery of transferred property from 1st National Cash Refund and Carl Woodford pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutes of limitation found in 11 U.S.C. § 549 and 11 U.S.C. § 550 were equitably tolled and that the bankruptcy court properly found that the trustee had power to avoid and recover the transferred property. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion entered on September 9, 2013, Ruth A. Slone v. Jason E. Anderson, et al., (In re Anderson), Ch. 7 Case No. 10-30064, Adv. No. 10-3361 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2013) ECF No. 97, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 B.R. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slone-v-anderson-in-re-anderson-bap6-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack