Borman, In re, 88-2063
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Citation | 886 F.2d 273 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2063,88-2063 |
| Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,161 In re Delbert Dean BORMAN and Deryl Jane Borman, Debtors. Delbert Dean BORMAN; Deryl Jane Borman, Debtors-Appellees, v. Donna LEIKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1989 |
Page 273
Delbert Dean BORMAN; Deryl Jane Borman, Debtors-Appellees,
v.
Donna LEIKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Tenth Circuit.
Publication Ordered Sept. 21, 1989.
Scott M. Price of Marietta, Kellogg, Price & Waltz, Salina, Kan., for debtors-appellees.
W. Thomas Gilman of Redmond, Redmond & Nazar, Wichita, Kan., for defendant-appellant.
Before MOORE, ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(1); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court affirming the decision of the bankruptcy court which voided the lien of debtor's former spouse on the debtor's homestead property located in the State of Kansas. We REVERSE.
The facts of this case are undisputed. Appellant (wife) and Appellee (husband) were married to each other until July 1981, when they were divorced. During their marriage the parties acquired a residence which they owned as joint tenants. The divorce decree incorporated a property settlement which provided that wife would continue to live in the house and make the mortgage payments until July 1, 1983, at which time the house would be appraised and husband would pay to wife one half of
Page 274
the appraised value as a property settlement. Upon payment, husband would then own the house. On January 13, 1984, the divorce decree was modified upon motion of husband. The court, noting the special circumstances of the parties, set aside its previous order and ordered husband to pay to wife the sum of $19,640.67 within forty-five days for the purpose of effectuating a division of the marital estate. The court further ordered that if husband failed to pay the cash settlement, the real estate assigned to him would be sold and the proceeds applied first to the payment of any mortgages of record and then to the obligation owed to wife. When the cash settlement was due, husband filed a Chapter Seven bankruptcy petition.Upon filing for bankruptcy, husband listed the real property as exempt property under the Kansas Homestead Exemption Statute. Wife filed no objection thereto....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chun v. Board of Trustees, 23892.
..."such an adjustment . . . must be accompanied by a reasonable explanation of why the benchmark is unreasonable under the circumstances." 886 F.2d at 273. In other words, by contrast to Gunter, the Ninth Circuit requires more detailed reasoning 106 P.3d 362 when federal district courts devia......
-
Chun v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 23892
..."such an adjustment . . . must be accompanied by a reasonable explanation of why the benchmark is unreasonable under the circumstances." 886 F.2d at 273. In other words, by contrast to Gunter, the Ninth Circuit requires more detailed reasoning when federal district courts deviate from the t......
-
Sanderfoot, In re, No. 88-3148
...Circuit, though this "difficulty" has led to a split among the courts of appeals that have examined the statute. Compare In re Borman, 886 F.2d 273 (10th Cir.1989) and Boyd v. Robinson, 741 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir.1984) with In re Pederson, 875 F.2d 781 (9th Cir.1989) and Maus v. Maus, 837 F.2d ......
-
In re Stone, Bankruptcy No. 88-03102-R3K
...right to have specific property applied to payment of a particular debt, is not a "judicial lien" subject to avoidance. In re Borman, 886 F.2d 273 (10th Cir.1989); In re Donahue, 862 F.2d 259 (10th Cir.1988). The Seventh and Ninth Circuits however have rejected this position. In re Pederson......