USATODAY.com

Schwab v. Reilly, 08-538 - FindLaw US Supreme Court Center

Supreme Court Docket



Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled | Previous Terms


[Download November 2, 2009 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2008 Docket]

Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.


Schwab v. Reilly
No. 08-538

Title:

    Schwab v. Reilly

Subject:

    Bankruptcy

Question:

    The Third Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which held that when the values on a debtor's list of assets and on her claim of exemptions are equal, a Chapter 7 Trustee must object to a debtor's claim of exempt property within 30 days in order to retain his statutory authority to later sell property for the benefit of creditors. Because of the wide and contradictory array of judicial decisions construing this Court's decision in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 112 S. Ct. 1644, 118 L. Ed. 2d 180 (1992), three questions are presented:

    1. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, is the exemption limited to the specific amount claimed, or do the numbers being equal operate to "fully exempt" the asset, regardless of its true value?

    2. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, must a trustee who wishes to sell the asset object to the exemptions within the thirty day period of Rule 4003, even though the amount claimed as exempt and the type of property are within the exemption statute?

    3. Did the Third Circuit unconstitutionally encroach on Congress' exclusive power to legislate in the field of bankruptcy when it created new trustee duties and when it created unlimited "in kind" exemptions where the statute contains specific dollarvalue limitations?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner:

Craig Goldblatt
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Washington, DC

For Respondent:

G. Eric Brunstad Jr.
Dechert LLP
Hartford, CT

 


Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled | Previous Terms

 

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader