In re Barto

9 Citing cases

  1. In re Miller

    30 B.R. 819 (M.D. Tenn. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    1982); Redin v. Fidelity Financial Services, 14 B.R. 727, 729 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo. 1981); Phillips v. Household Finance Corp., 13 B.R. 811, 815 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1981); Storer v. Thorp Credit, Inc., 13 B.R. 1, 4 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1981); Frederickson v. Household Finance Corp., 12 B.R. 506, 508 (Bkrtcy.D.S.D. 1981); Dickens v. Snellings, 10 B.R. 949, 955 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Va. 1981); Kursh v. Dial Finance Co., 9 B.R. 801, 803 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo. 1981); Security Pacific Finance Corp. v. Banta, 8 B.R. 145, 151 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 1981); Credithrift of America, Inc. v. Dubrock, 5 B.R. 353, 356 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Ky. 1980). Contra, Cowan v. Cowan (In reScott), 12 B.R. 613 (Bkrtcy.D.Okla.

  2. In re Clark

    217 B.R. 177 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1998)   Cited 10 times
    Deciding the question in the negative and collecting several cases deciding the same

    Thus, by the plain language of the statute, a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest may be avoided only (a) if it impairs an exemption claimed by the debtorand (b) if it attaches to property of the type described in § 522(f)(1)(B)(i) through (iii), that is, household furnishings, tools of the trade, or professionally prescribed health aids. See Security Pacific Fin. Corp. v. Barto (In re Barto), 8 B.R. 145, 147 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1981), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Security Pacific Fin. Co., 704 F.2d 142 (4th Cir. 1983) (Congress intended to protect otherwise exempt household goods, furnishings and appliances typically having, at best, nominal resale value, but high replacement cost); In re Wetzel, 46 B.R. 254, 255 (Bankr.W.D.Va. 1984) (consensual security interest in firearms could not be avoided because firearms are not household goods or furnishings); In re Psick, 61 B.R. 308, 313 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1985) (avoidance of consensual liens available only with respect to "a protected class of specific types of property"; dirt bike, tractor-loader and automobile did not fall within that class).

  3. In re DeRosa

    20 B.R. 307 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982)   Cited 74 times

    In re Fox, 17 B.R. 300 ((Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla. 1982) (§ 523(a)(2)(A)); In re Farley, 8 B.R. 145, 5 C.B.C.2d 549 (Bkrtcy.D.Or. 1981) (§ 523(a)(2)(A)); In re Vegh, 14 B.R. 345, 3 Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 68,367 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla. 1981) (§ 523(a)(2)(A));

  4. In re Beneficial Finance Co. of Virginia

    18 B.R. 174 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1982)   Cited 10 times

    The policy of Congress to afford a debtor a "fresh start" was thwarted because some creditors took unfair advantage of consumer debtors and abused the blanket security interest. H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (1977) 126-27, U.S. Code Cong. Admin. News 1978 p. 5787; 124 Cong.Rec.H. 11,095 (September 28, 1978); S. 17,412 (October 6, 1978); Security Pacific Finance Co. v. Barto, 8 B.R. 145 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 1980). The author of opinions should not seek to do what another has done better.

  5. Matter of Strain

    16 B.R. 797 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1982)   Cited 5 times

    1981); In re Bowles, 8 B.R. 394 (Bkrtcy.S.D. Ohio 1981); In re Farris, 8 B.R. 186 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn. 1981); In re Barto, 8 B.R. 145 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 1981); In re Rodgers, 5 B.R. 761, 2 C.B.C.2d 1294 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Va. 1981); In re Dubrock, 5 B.R. 353, 2 C.B.C.2d 776, 6 B.C.D. 771 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Ky. 1980); In re Curry, 5 B.R. 282, 2 C.B.C.2d 710 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 1981) ( affirmed 11 B.R. 716) ; In re Hill, 4 B.R. 310, 2 C.B.C.2d 123, 6 B.C.D. 307 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1980); In re Cox, 4 B.R. 240, 2 C.B.C.2d 255, 6 B.C.D. 434 (Bkrtcy.S.D. Ohio 1980); In re Redin, 14 B.R. 727, 8 B.C.D. 332 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo. 1981); In re Kursh, 9 B.R. 801, 4 C.B.C.2d 84, 7 B.C.D. 592 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo. 1981).

  6. In re Eagan

    16 B.R. 439 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1982)   Cited 24 times
    Referring to the Code and declaring that "[b]eing a remedial statute, the exemption provisions of the Code should be liberally construed"

    Hence, a gap or interim of almost 11 months exists between the enactment date and the effective date of the new bankruptcy laws. For cases holding the avoidance of consensual liens created in the "gap" period to be constitutional see In re Bradford, 6 B.R. 741 (D.Nev. 1980), aff'g, 5 B.R. 18 (Bkrtcy., D.Nev. 1980); In re Dawkins, 13 B.R. 741 (Bkrtcy., S.D.Fla. 1981); In re Osborne, 11 B.R. 610 (Bkrtcy., D.S.C. 1981); In re Lumpkins, 11 B.R. 76 (Bkrtcy., D.R.I. 1981); In re Carroll, 11 B.R. 45 (Bkrtcy., E.D.N.Y. 1981) (dicta approving Steinart, infra); In re Coleman, 10 B.R. 772 (Bkrtcy., D.Md. 1981); In re Bruntz, 10 B.R. 444 (Bkrtcy., N.D.Iowa 1981); Matter of Fennel, 9 B.R. 340 (Bkrtcy., D.Idaho 1981); Matter of Teske, 9 B.R. 18 (Bkrtcy., W.D.Mich. 1981); In re Farris, 8 B.R. 186 (Bkrtcy., E.D.Tenn. 1981); In re Barto, 8 B.R. 145 (Bkrtcy., E.D.Va. 1981); In re Wells, 7 B.R. 875 (Bkrtcy., D.Colo. 1980); In re Sweeney, 7 B.R. 814 (Bkrtcy., E.D.Wisc. 1980); In re Webber, 7 B.R. 580 (Bkrtcy., D.Ore. 1980); In re Brown, 7 B.R. 264 (Bkrtcy., N.D.Tex. 1980); In re Seltzer, 7 B.R. 80 (Bkrtcy., D.Colo. 1980); In re Beck, 4 B.R. 661 (Bkrtcy., C.D.Ill. 1980); In re Head, 4 B.R. 521 (Bkrtcy., E.D.Tenn. 1980); In re Steinart, 4 B.R. 354 (Bkrtcy., W.D.La. 1980). The following cases found application of § 522(f)(2) during the gap period to be an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation.

  7. In re Lumpkins

    11 B.R. 76 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    However, the weight of authority, and in my opinion, the better reasoned decisions hold that § 522(f) is applicable to liens and security interest created before the Code became effective, but after its enactment date, and that such an application does not violate the Fifth Amendment. I choose to follow the result and reasoning adopted by these courts: E. g. Brown v. Termplan and U.S. Credit Life, 7 B.R. 264 (N.D.Tex. 1980); Baker v. GFC Corp. of Missouri, 6 BCD 747 (W.D.Mo. 1980); Head v. Home Credit Co, 4 B.R. 521, 6 BCD 489 (E.D.Tenn. 1980); Security Pacific Finance Corp. v. Barto, 8 B.R. 145 (E.D.Va. 1981); Pillow v. Avco Financial Services, 8 B.R. 404 (D.Utah 1981); Stump v. Beneficial Finance Co. of South Dakota, 8 B.R. 516 (1981); Teske v. General Finance Corp., 9 B.R. 18 (W.D.Mich. 1981).

  8. In re Clark

    9 B.R. 407 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    The cases present analogous factual settings. Each of the debtors initially borrowed money prior to the "cut off date" of November 6, 1978, as established by this Court in In re Barto, 8 B.R. 145, ___ BCD ___ (E.D.Va. 1981). The debtors then refinanced the notes after November 6, 1978.

  9. In re Felmey

    9 B.R. 331 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1981)   Cited 5 times

    Proceedings in all of the above-captioned cases came on for hearing on February 24, 1981, upon applications for the avoidance of liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). In each instance the original loan and the perfection of a lien had been made prior to November 6, 1978, which under the Court's decision in In re Barto, 8 B.R. 145, (1981), would render a lien based upon such loan nonavoidable. However and further, in each instance at least one subsequent loan was made wherein the prior note was cancelled and no new recordation pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, Title 8.