Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Horseman v. Hare, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The Horsemans appealed two orders from the district court affirming bankruptcy court rulings. The first order affirmed the denial of the Horsemans' discharge in bankruptcy. The second order dismissed their appeal of an order setting aside a fraudulent conveyance. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's rulings that upheld the bankruptcy court's orders denying the Horsemans' discharge and setting aside the fraudulent conveyance.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-2264

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Horsemans appealed two orders from the district court affirming bankruptcy court rulings. The first order affirmed the denial of the Horsemans' discharge in bankruptcy. The second order dismissed their appeal of an order setting aside a fraudulent conveyance. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's rulings that upheld the bankruptcy court's orders denying the Horsemans' discharge and setting aside the fraudulent conveyance.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views2 pages

    Horseman v. Hare, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Horsemans appealed two orders from the district court affirming bankruptcy court rulings. The first order affirmed the denial of the Horsemans' discharge in bankruptcy. The second order dismissed their appeal of an order setting aside a fraudulent conveyance. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's rulings that upheld the bankruptcy court's orders denying the Horsemans' discharge and setting aside the fraudulent conveyance.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-2264

    In Re: JAMES ARNOLD HORSEMAN, JR.;


    In Re: PATTY JEAN HORSEMAN,
    Debtors.
    _________________________
    JAMES ARNOLD
    HORSEMAN,

    HORSEMAN,

    JR.;

    PATTY

    JEAN
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,

    and
    LORRAINE M. HORSEMAN,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    CONSTANCE M. HARE,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-981252-AMD, CA-98-1412-AMD, BK-95-3127-SD, AP-96-5-023-SD)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 1998

    Decided:

    December 29, 1998

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    James Arnold Horseman, Jr., Patty Jean Horseman, Appellants Pro Se.
    Gary Raymond Greenblatt, MEHLMAN & GREENBLATT, L.L.C., Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James Arnold Horseman and Patty Jean Horseman appeal from the
    district courts orders (1) affirming the bankruptcy courts order
    denying their discharge in bankruptcy and (2) dismissing their appeal of the bankruptcy courts order setting aside a fraudulent
    conveyance.

    Our review of the record and the district courts

    opinions discloses no reversible error.


    the reasoning of the district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on
    See Horseman v. Hare, Nos.

    CA-98-1252-AMD; CA-98-1412-AMD; BK-95-3127-SD; AP-96-5-023-SD (D.


    Md. June 19 & July 29, 1998).

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in


    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like