Bankruptcy
In re Millard P. THOMAS, III, Debtor. Lauren A. Helbling, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Millard P. Thomas, III, et al., Defendants-Appellees
510 B.R. 113·United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit·2014
Before: EMERSON, HARRISON, and LLOYD, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re Millard P. THOMAS, III, Debtor. Lauren A. Helbling, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Millard P. Thomas, III, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
BAP No. 13-8052.
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit.
Filed May 15, 2014.
ON BRIEF: Lauren A. Helbling, Cleveland, OH, for Appellant. James E. Kovac, Cleveland, OH, for Appellees.
Before: EMERSON, HARRISON, and LLOYD, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.
[MAJORITY — MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Judge.]
OPINION
MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Judge.
The issue before the Panel on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in holding that real property transferred in error to Debtor by his Father pre-petition was impressed with a constructive trust as a matter of law, and thus, the bankruptcy estate had no interest in the real property. The Panel reviews this conclusion of law de novo. See In re Booth, 260 B.R. 281, 285 (6th Cir. BAP 2001); First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Eubanks (In re Eubanks), 219 B.R. 468, 469 (6th Cir. BAP 1998) (citation omitted). After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court did not err. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy court’s well-reasoned opinion entered on November 12, 2013, Helbling v. Thomas, (In re Thomas), Ch. 7 Case No. 12-14916, Adv. No. 13-1012 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2013) ECF No. 66, we affirm.