Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Maryland » the District of Maryland » 2000 » Susquehanna Financial v Eloise Norcia
Susquehanna Financial v Eloise Norcia
State: Maryland
Court: Maryland District Court
Case Date: 11/21/2000
Preview:IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE: ELOISE NORCIA SUSQUEHANNA FINANCIAL : Civil Action No. DKC 2000-2430 v. : ELOISE NORCIA : MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the court on appeal from the order of Bankruptcy Judge Paul Mannes, granting summary judgment in favor of debtor, Eloise Norcia, and denying the summary judgment motion of creditor Susquehanna Financial Group II, LLC ("Susquehanna"). The : :

bankruptcy court held that, under Maryland and federal law, Norcia could recover transferred wages as exempt property, and it entered a money judgment against Susquehanna and in favor of Norcia for $1,308.23. Oral argument is deemed unnecessary because the facts

and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. See Bankr. Rule 8012. For the reasons set forth

below the court will AFFIRM the decision of the bankruptcy court. I. Background The facts are undisputed. Susquehanna obtained a money

judgment against Norcia on November 5, 1998 in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County for $2,249.50. A writ of

garnishment was issued on January 20, 1999 and Norcia's employer was served. On July 13, 1999, Norcia filed a voluntary petition under

Chapter 13, which was converted to a case under Chapter 7 on November 29. Within the 90-day period preceding Norcia's filing her petition, Norcia's employer transferred a total of $1,308.23 of her wages to Susequahanna, pursuant to the garnishment. Norcia

subsequently filed a complaint to recover that amount. On July 28, 1999, Norcia claimed these proceeds of the

garnishment as exempt on her Schedule C. The parties agree that the bankruptcy trustee could have brought a preference action to avoid transfer of these funds, but failed to do so. The parties filed in the bankruptcy court cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc.
Download Susquehanna Financial v Eloise Norcia.pdf

Maryland Law

Maryland State Laws
Maryland Court
Maryland Tax
Maryland Labor Laws
Maryland Agencies

Comments

Tips