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In Re: Ronald Yuhas Precedential or Non-Precedential: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 [email protected]. 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,

(3d Cir. 1983). Our decision here concerns the question whether a qualified IRA is excluded from a bankruptcy estate under

, as a result of a 1993 amendment of N.J.S.A. § 25:2-1(b). By contrast, the holding in In re

concerned the meaning of an exemption provision,

(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

, 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