The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-1491•In re: Michele Blankenship
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1491
In Re: MICHELE BLANKENSHIP,
Debtor.
CHARLES D. DARDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHELE BLANKENSHIP,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-01-876-2, BK-99-25293-S)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Michele Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Charles D. Darden, Appellee
Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michele Blankenship appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order avoiding $3501 of
Defendant’s $16,000 lien against her real property pursuant to 11
U.S.C.A. § 522(f) (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record
and the lower courts’ opinions and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Darden v. Blankenship, Nos. CA-01-876-2; BK-99-25293-S (E.D. Va.
filed Apr. 5, 2002; entered Apr. 8, 2002). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.