In Re: Ronald Yuhas

Opinions of the United
1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-26-1997
In Re: Ronald Yuhas
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 96-5146
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Ronald Yuhas" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 46.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/46
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 96-5146
____________
IN RE: RONALD J. YUHAS,
Debtor
____________________
THOMAS J. ORR,
Appellant
v.
RONALD J. YUHAS
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________
(Civil Action No. 95-5551)
Argued: October 1, 1996
Before: ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges
and GREEN, District Judge
(Opinion Filed on: January 22, 1997)
___________________
ORDER
___________________
The opinion in this case is hereby amended:
The following is added as footnote 5 at the end of the last sentence
of Part II.
Our decision in this case is fully consistent with In re Clark, 711 F.2d 21 (3d Cir.
1983). Our decision here concerns the question whether a qualified IRA is excluded from a
bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541, as a result of a 1993 amendment of N.J.S.A. § 25:2-1(b).
By contrast, the holding in In re Clark, supra, concerned the meaning of an exemption provision,
11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). It is true that the parties in In re Clark appear to have assumed that the
petitioner's Keogh plan was property of the bankruptcy estate, see 711 F.2d at 22, but at that time
the amendment of N.J.S.A. § 25:2-1(b) that provides the foundation for our decision here had not
been enacted, and thus there was no basis for contending that the Keogh plan was excluded from
the estate on the ground that we endorse here.
BY THE COURT:
\s\ Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Circuit Judge
DATED: February 26, 1997