Van Rye v. Murphy
This text of 96 F.3d 1430 (Van Rye v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
96 F.3d 1430
NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.
John N. VAN RYE, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Harold B. MURPHY, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 96-1463.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Sept. 16, 1996.
George R. Desmond on brief for appellant.
Andrew G. Lizotte, Harold E. Murphy and Hanify & King, P.C. on brief for appellee.
Andrew G. Lizotte, Harold E. Murphy and Hanify & King, P.C. on brief for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, CYR and STAHL, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we find no error in the bankruptcy court's determination, In re Van Rye, 179 B.R. 375, 378-79 (Bankr.D.Mass.1995), that the trustee had standing to object to the debtor's homestead exemption claim. See First National Bank v. Norris, 701 F.2d 902, 904 (11th Cir.1983); see also In re Duda, 182 B.R. 662, 665 n. 1 (Bankr.D.Conn.1995); In re Michael, 185 B.R. 830, 836-37 (Bankr.D.Mont.1995).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
96 F.3d 1430, 1996 WL 521185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-rye-v-murphy-ca1-1996.