Skip to main content

§ 522(d)(11)(E)

Spak, In re

Jul
30
2021
Ruling
Debtor was not entitled to exemption for expense of replacing automobile because trustee haddemonstrated that funds were not reasonably necessary for support of debtor or anydependent of debtor. (Bankr. D.N.J.)
Issue(s)
Exemptions; Types of Exempt Property; Compensation for Losses; Loss of Future

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Spak, In re Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

:
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 30, 2021 , LexisNexis #0921-059
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Holstien

Oct
11
2011
Ruling
Trustee's motion for stay pending appeal denied where argument that workers' compensation award was not exempt was not likely to succeed.
Procedural posture

Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005, a Chapter 7 trustee filed a motion for a stay pending appeal of the court's order denying the trustee's objection to the debtors' claim of exemption with respect to the debtor husband's workers' compensation redemption payment under 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(d)(11)(E).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Holstien Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on October 11, 2011 , LexisNexis #1111-010
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Meyer

Aug
25
2010
Ruling
Debtor entitled to exemption in annuity resulting from auto accident settlement.
Procedural posture

The chapter 7 trustee objected to the debtor's claimed exemption in an annuity under 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(d)(11)(E). Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Meyer Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 25, 2010 , LexisNexis #0910-076
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Jackson

Sep
03
2008
Ruling
Bankruptcy court properly held that "loss of future earnings" refers only to postpetition future earnings.
Procedural posture

Appellant debtors challenged an order from a bankruptcy court, which found that the term "loss of future earnings" as used in 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(d)(11)(E) referred only to post- bankruptcy petition future earnings.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Jackson Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on September 03, 2008 , LexisNexis #0908-136
LexisNexis Article
Learn More
Subscribe to %1