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)
15-1427•In Re: ROBERT L. KAETZEL; VIRGINIA L.W. KAETZEL v. GARY ALAN ROSEN, Chapter 7 Trustee in 12-26705 WIL
15-1427Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 17, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1427
In Re: ROBERT L. KAETZEL; VIRGINIA L.W. KAETZEL,
Debtors.
-----------------------------------
FRANZ BOENING,
Creditor – Appellant,
v.
GARY ALAN ROSEN, Chapter 7 Trustee in 12-26705 WIL,
Plaintiff in AP No. 13-042 WIL,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-00668-JFM)
Submitted: October 27, 2015 Decided: November 17, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig B. Leavers, HOFMEISTER, BREZA & LEAVERS, Hunt Valley,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rand L. Gelber, Rockville, Maryland,
for Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Franz Boening appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the order of the bankruptcy court denying Boening’s
motion to compel the trustee to abandon the bankruptcy estate’s
interest in a lien that was avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 548
(2012). The bankruptcy court denied the motion, determining
that the value to the bankruptcy estate of an avoided lien which
is preserved for the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 551 (2012),
is equal to the amount of the transfer avoided. We have
reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we
find no reversible error by either the bankruptcy court or the
district court. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Boening v. Rosen, No. 8:14-cv-00668-JFM
(D. Md. filed Mar. 20, 2015; entered Mar. 23, 2015). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.