In re Lybrook
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Section 348(f), enacted in 1994, generally measures property in a converted Chapter 7 estate from the original Chapter 13 filing; the confirmed treatments listed below recognize that this displaced Lybrook's rule for conversions governed by the amendment. The statute retains a different rule for bad faith conversions, and pre-amendment cases remain distinct.
31 later cases cite In re Lybrook; 31 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on In re Lybrook?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
The court recognized that the 1994 amendment displaced Lybrook's conversion-date rule.
In re Weed · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada · filed
In re Lybrook, 951 F.2d 136 (7th Cir.1991), which was overruled by the amendment, cited In re Lindberg, 735 F.2d 1087 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1073, 105 S.Ct. 566, 83 L.Ed.2d 507 (1984) for support.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court applied the amended statute and rejected Lybrook's approach to property acquired during Chapter 13.
Farmer v. Taco Bell Corp. · W.D. Tennessee · filed
In amending section 348, Congress specifically decided to reject the Lybrook approach in favor of the Bobroff approach.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that § 348(f)(1) excludes post-petition income from the converted Chapter 7 estate where the amendment applies.
Stamm v. Morton · Fifth Circuit · filed
We stated that Congress added Section 348(f) “to resolve the circuit split,” quoted the relevant statutory language, and noted that Congress “took issue with In re Lybrook.” Id. The clear implication of Baker is that Section 348(f)(1), where applicable, establishes that the post-petition income does not remain property of the estate upon conversion.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court found that Congress displaced Lybrook's conversion rule when it enacted § 348(f).
EconoLube N' Tune, Inc. v. Frausto (In re Frausto) · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama · filed
Likewise, it would seem that the ruling in Valley Fed. Sav. Bank v. Anderson has lost any precedential value on the point since the court in that case relied heavily on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision in In re Lybrook, 951 F.2d 136 (7th Cir.1991), which was specifically overruled by Congress when it enacted section 348(f).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that § 348(f)(1) changed the conversion-date rule represented by Lybrook.
Alexander v. Jensen-Carter · Eighth Circuit · filed
This state of affairs changed, however, when Congress added section 348(f)(1) to the Bankruptcy Code in 1994. Section 348(f)(1)(A) provides that the property of a converted Chapter 7 estate is the property of the estate as of the date of the Chapter 13 filing. The legislative history to section 348(f)(1) indicates that Congress intended this language to overrule the holding of cases such as Lybrook in favor of those cases holding that the property of the estate in a converted case is the property the debtor had when he filed his original Chapter 13 petition.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Congress displaced Lybrook's rule for Chapter 13 conversions, while leaving other chapters outside the amendment.
Rogers v. Freeman (In re Freeman) · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia · filed
Congress never stated that the Lybrook line of cases wrongly decided the issue. Instead, Congress legislatively “overruled” those cases as they apply in conversions from Chapter 13.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The panel read the 1994 amendment as replacing Lybrook's rule for converted Chapter 13 cases.
In re Jason Scott Brown · Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel · filed
Congress expressly overruled cases such as ... Matter of Lybrook, 951 F.2d 136 (7th Cir. 1991), which held that if ... the case is converted, all after-acquired property becomes part of the ... estate in the converted chapter 7 case, and adopted In re Bobroff, ... original chapter 13 petition was filed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that § 348(f)(1)(A) rejects Lybrook's conversion rule.
In re Castleman · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington · filed
Section 348(f)(1)(A) clearly adopts the Bobroff approach and ... rejects Lybrook.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Congress resolved the pre-1994 split that included Lybrook by enacting § 348(f).
Rodriguez v. Barrera · Tenth Circuit · filed
In re Lybrook, 951 F.2d 136 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding real estate inherited by Chapter 13 debtor post-petition, pre-conversion was part of the converted Chapter 7 estate). Congress resolved this pre-Bankruptcy Reform Act circuit split by enacting 11 U.S.C. § 348(f) in 1994.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Lybrook and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace