In re Fly
In re FLY
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Wellborn (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a bankruptcy referee's decision regarding the exemption of farming implements for a debtor who had temporarily ceased farming. The court reversed the referee's decision and ordered that the enumerated articles be set aside to the bankrupt as exempt.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Reversal of the referee's decision regarding the exemption of specific farming articles“The referee’s decision, so far as it relates to the articles above enumerated, is reversed, and said articles will be set aside to the bankrupt as exempt.” | agree with court The court applied a factual inference that the debtor's temporary change in occupation did not constitute a permanent abandonment of farming, which is a reasonable interpretation of exemption statutes that protect the tools of a trade or profession. The reliance on persuasive authority from other jurisdictions (Iowa and Massachusetts) to support this interpretation is legally sound in the absence of specific local precedent cited in the order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is concise and relies on persuasive authority from other jurisdictions to support a factual inference regarding the debtor's intent. It does not cite the specific federal bankruptcy statute or local state exemption statute governing the case, but the legal principle applied is standard and the factual finding is supported by the 'undisputed' evidence mentioned.
Opinion — Wellborn
WELLBORN, District Judge.
The evidence is undisputed that up to June of last year the bankrupt was actively engaged in farming. Although the bankrupt has since engaged in another pursuit, yet I think the inference a fair one that this latter occupation is but temporary, and does not mean permanent abandonment of his former occupation. It has been held, under the Iowa statute, that a debtor could claim his exemption as a farmer, though he had temporarily stopped farming and was living in town, and had sought other employment there, and had offered to sell some of his farming implements, if he intended to resume farming. Pease v. Price, 101 Iowa, 57, 69 N. W. 1120; 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 104, note 1. See, also, Caswell v. Keith, 12 Gray, 351; Freem. Ex’ns, § 226. The referee’s decision, so far as it relates to the articles above enumerated, is reversed, and said articles will be set aside to the bankrupt as exempt.