TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gary GREENBLATT, Trustee v. Levy FORD, Jr. . in Re Levy FORD, Jr., Debtor

3 Collier bankr.cas.2d 549, Bankr. L. Rep. P 67,768 Gary Greenblatt, Trustee v. Levy Ford, Jr., in Re Levy Ford, Jr., Debtor

Greenblatt v. Levy FORD, Jr. . in Re Levy FORD, Jr., Debtor, 638 F.2d 14 (4th Cir. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 9, 1981
Docket
No. 80-1589
Judges
Ervin, Per Curiam, Sprouse, Winter
Citations
638 F.2d 143 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 5491981 U.S. App. LEXIS 21128

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding brought under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1330 , appeals from a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, sitting in banc. In a thorough and detailed opinion, the Bankruptcy Court held that the filing of a bankruptcy petition solely by the husband does not sever the *15 estate of tenancy by the entirety in either real or personal property held as such by the debtor and his wife under Maryland law, that the debtor’s interest in entireties property is property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(1), but that the interest may be exempted by the debtor from property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522 (b)(2)(B).

In this appeal, the trustee challenges the first and third of these holdings. On the severance issue, he argues that the filing of a bankruptcy petition disturbs the unities of time, title, identity of interest, and possession necessary to preserve the entireties estate, thus creating a tenancy in common. He also contends that the debtor may not invoke § 522(b)(2)(B) because the debtor’s interest is not “exempt from process” under Maryland law.

We reject these contentions. Having considered the briefs and arguments of counsel before this court, we affirm on the opinion of the Bankruptcy Court.

In re Levy Ford, Jr., 3 B.R. 559 (Bkrtcy.D.Md.1980).

* AFFIRMED.

* Although he did not take a cross appeal, the debtor urges on us that the Bankruptcy Court was in error in holding that his interest in property held by him and his wife as tenants by the entireties became part of the bankrupt estate. We reject this argument also for the reasons assigned by the Bankruptcy Court.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 118 cases

View all citing references →
1981: 121982: 111983: 141984: 141985: 111986: 21987: 11988: 21989: 11990: 31991: 21992: 31994: 31995: 31996: 11997: 41998: 22000: 32001: 22002: 82003: 12004: 12005: 32006: 12007: 22010: 12011: 12013: 12014: 22017: 12020: 12026: 119812026peak 1983 · 14

Most recent

  1. In re Wanda Harding StakerNo. 24-10444 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2026)
  2. Joseph C. Morrone, Jr.No. 19-30708 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2020)
  3. Bellinger v. Buckley577 B.R. 193 (D. Maryland 2017)
  4. In re Pace521 B.R. 124 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2014)
  5. Raskin v. Susquehanna Bank (In re Raskin)505 B.R. 684 (Bankr. D. Md. 2014)
  6. Jose Alvarez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.733 F.3d 136 (4th Cir. 2013)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Ford, 3 B.R. 559 (Bankr. D. Md. 1980) 147

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