TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Hoblit

In Re Joseph L. HOBLIT, Debtor

In re Hoblit, 89 B.R. 756 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Bankruptcy Courts
Decided
December 19, 1986
Docket
No. 19-80238
Judges
Larry L. Lessen
Citations
89 B.R. 7561986 Bankr. LEXIS 47511986 WL 20921

Opinion — Lessen

*757 OPINION LARRY L. LESSEN, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Petitioner’s motion to withdraw certain real estate from the bankruptcy estate. The Trustee opposes the motion. The matter was called for hearing on July 2, 1986. At this time, the Court set a briefing schedule. The matter has now been fully briefed and it is ripe for decision.

The Debtor filed his Chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy on October 9, 1985. The Debt- or listed on his bankruptcy schedules a one-third remainder interest in 276 acres of real estate. In the motion presently before the Court, the Debtor states that at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition the Debtor’s interest in the property was not vested. He further stated that shortly after the filing of the petition, this contingent interest vested so that he is now entitled to a portion of the property. The Debtor requests a return of the asset and asks that it not be made a part of the bankruptcy estate.

The issue before the Court is whether the Debtor’s interest in the real property is part of the bankruptcy estate. The Debtor argues that he did not have a vested remainder interest in the property, but rather a contingent remainder, and therefore, the property did not become property of the estate. The Trustee counters that the Debtor’s interest in the real property is part of the estate, regardless of whether it is contingent or vested.

This Court recently addressed this very issue in In re Reynolds, 50 B.R. 20 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.1985). In Reynolds , the Trustee filed an adversary complaint to sell the Debtor’s remainder interest in certain real estate subject to the life estate of the Debtor’s Mother. The Debtor objected to the sale on the grounds that his only interest in the property was that of a contingent remainder. The Court noted that in In re Landis, 41 F.2d 700 (7th Cir.1930), the Seventh Circuit held that a contingent remainder in Illinois land was an asset of the bankruptcy estate under the Act. Since a contingent remainder passed to a Trustee under the Act, the Reynolds Court had little difficulty finding that such an interest would also pass to the Trustee under the Code. The Court noted that the question of whether or not title vests was no longer an issue under the Code. Accordingly, the Court held that “whether the Debtor’s interest in real property be contingent or vested, it shall be part of the estate for the Trustee to sell”. 50 B.R. at 21 .

See, In re Watson, 65 B.R. 9, 12 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.1986).

In light of Reynolds it is clear that the Debtor’s interest in the real estate is an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In addition, the income earned and accruing for the real estate from the date of the bankruptcy is also an asset of the bankruptcy estate. The Trustee may proceed to sell this asset.

The Debtor’s Motion to Withdraw the Real Estate from the bankruptcy estate is DENIED.

This Opinion is to serve as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1987: 11988: 11991: 119872026peak 1987 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Newman88 B.R. 191 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1987)
  2. Anderson v. McGowan (In re Anderson)128 B.R. 850 (D.R.I. 1991)
  3. WTHW Investment Builders v. Dias (In re Dias)95 B.R. 419 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Anderson v. McGowan (In re Anderson)128 B.R. 850 (D.R.I. 1991)
  2. WTHW Investment Builders v. Dias (In re Dias)95 B.R. 419 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988)
  3. In re Newman88 B.R. 191 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
In re Reynolds, 50 B.R. 20 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1985) 3
Geekie v. Watson (In re Watson), 65 B.R. 9 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1986) 26
In re Landis, 41 F.2d 700 (7th Cir. 1930) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list