Van Rye v. Murphy

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

September 16, 1996    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 96-1463



                                   JOHN N. VAN RYE,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                  HAROLD B. MURPHY,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            George R. Desmond on brief for appellant.
            _________________

            Andrew  G. Lizotte,  Harold E. Murphy  and Hanify &  King, P.C. on
            __________________   ________________      ____________________

        brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________



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.
                 ________   ___


-2-