Matter of Allison

3 Citing cases

  1. In Matter of Saythongphet

    CASE NO. BK10-81064-TLS (Bankr. D. Neb. Aug. 17, 2010)

    There is no evidence to the contrary. This case is very similar to In re Allison, 209 B.R. 494 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1997), wherein Judge Minahan of this district held that an extended family consisting of a father, adult daughter, and granddaughter qualified the father to claim a homestead exemption as head of family. Accordingly, regardless of whether Nebraska law would recognize Mr. Seuthsy's children as Debtor's children for homestead purposes, Debtor can claim a homestead exemption as a head of family since her adult child lives with her and depends upon Debtor for support.

  2. In re Saythongphet

    NO. BK10-81064-TLS (Bankr. D. Neb. Aug. 17, 2010)

    There is no evidence to the contrary. This case is very similar to In re Allison, 209 B.R. 494 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1997), wherein Judge Minahan of this district held that an extended family consisting of a father, adult daughter, and granddaughter qualified the father to claim a homestead exemption as head of family. Accordingly, regardless of whether Nebraska law would recognize Mr. Seuthsy's children as Debtor's children for homestead purposes, Debtor can claim a homestead exemption as a head of family since her adult child lives with her and depends upon Debtor for support.

  3. In re Roberts

    219 B.R. 235 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1998)   Cited 8 times

    In one line of cases, the availability of the Nebraska homestead exemption has been restricted to only those individuals who qualify as a "head of a family." See In re Roush, 215 B.R. 592, 593 (Bankr.D.Neb. 1997); In re Allison, 209 B.R. 494, 495 (Bankr.D.Neb. 1997); In re Foulk, 134 B.R. 929, 930-31 (Bankr.D.Neb. 1991); In re Coonrod, 135 B.R. 375, 377 (Bankr.D.Neb. 1991); In re Nachtigal, 82 B.R. 533, 534-35 (Bankr. D.Neb. 1988); Hartmann v. Wolf (In re Hartmann), 19 B.R. 844, 845 (Bankr.D.Neb. 1982). More recently, in the order of the bankruptcy court which now forms the subject of this appeal, another court has held otherwise.