Spenlinhauer v. Spencer Press, Inc.

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1684
IN RE: ROBERT J. SPENLINHAUER,
Debtor.
ROBERT J. SPENLINHAUER,
Appellant,
v.
SPENCER PRESS, INC.,
Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Christopher B. Branson, with whom E. Stephen Murray and
Murray, Plumb & Murray were on brief, for appellant.
Stephen G. Morrell, with whom Eaton, Peabody, Bradford &
Veague, P.A. was on brief, for Joseph V. O'Donnell, Chapter 7
trustee.
U. Charles Remmel, II, with whom Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman
was on brief, for appellee Spencer Press, Inc.
November 14, 1996
Per Curiam. After careful review of the briefs and the
Per Curiam.
record in this matter, and after consideration of the points
raised by counsel at oral argument, we see no fairly debatable
question. The debtor sought exclusion of the res of the JRS
Realty Trust (or, at least, his beneficial interest therein) from
the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. 541(c)(2) (1994); the
trustee in bankruptcy obviously had standing to resist exclusion;
and the trustee timely voiced an objection to exclusion. More to
the point, the self-settled JRS Realty Trust, of which the debtor
is both a settlor and a beneficiary, contains a spendthrift
clause which is vulnerable under Maine law and which, therefore,
cannot support the claim for exclusion. Accordingly, the
bankruptcy court did not err in denying the debtor's request to
withhold his interest in the trust from the bankruptcy estate.
We have repeatedly stated and today reaffirm that
we will not write at length to explicate points that have been
made perfectly clear by lower courts. Here, both the bankruptcy
court, In re Spenlinhauer, 182 B.R. 361 (Bankr. D. Me. 1995), and
the district court, Spenlinhauer v. Spencer Press, Inc., 195 B.R.
543 (D. Me. 1996), have written comprehensive opinions explaining
why the debtor's quest for exclusion of his beneficial interest
in the JRS Realty Trust from the bankruptcy estate is doomed to
failure. Thus, we need go no further, but, rather, we summarily
affirm the judgment on the basis of the lower courts' opinions.
Affirmed.
2