Weingarten v. Gill (In re Weingarten)
- Summarized by James Webster , Law Office of James Portman Webster, PLLC
- 10 years 9 months ago
- In the Matter of: PALOMBA WEINGARTEN, Case No. 2:10-cv-05648-ABC (9th Cir. Aug 17, 2012)(Not for Publication and/or Precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3)
- AFFIRMING the District Court, the 9th Circuit denied appellant the right to intervene in a bankruptcy case. The 9th Circuit held that an entity with a future revocable interest in a Qualified Personal Residence Trust (“QPRT”) has a recognized future interest in property, however, the interest is not sufficient to justify intervention in bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, even if there is a sufficient interest in the QPRT, in this instance, a presumption of adequate representation arose because the Debtors’ had the same ultimate objective as the appellant.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from the District Court.The Debtor’s children attempted to intervene in their parents bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Motion and the District Court affirmed.
- The Debtor's children had an interest in their mother’s revocable QPRT; the QPRT would not transfer to the children the Debtor died before 2027. While the QPRT was still in effect, the Debtor filed for bankruptcy protection and, within the bankruptcy proceedings, litigation ensued regarding the QPRT. Debtor's children attempted to intervene.
- SILVERMAN and WARDLAW (Circuit Judges) and FOGEL (District Judge).
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!