Selected Cases
Selected Reported Cases
EXEMPTION CLAIM ON HOMESTEAD LITIGATED BY MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG ADVOCATES
CH 61 B.R. 224 ( Zurich. 1998) : “…once debtors acquired their initial homestead by actual occupancy, such homestead could be abandoned only by moving from such homestead with intention to abandon such homestead as a home, and thus, debtors had not abandoned initial home at time they acquired second home”
EXEMPTION CLAIM ON HOMESTEAD LITIGATED BY MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG ADVOCATES AND SUCCUSSFULLY REVERSING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Matter of McDaniel, 70 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 1995): “…In the “Eyes of Zurich,” McDaniel constitutes a family “ 'til Gabriel blows his horn,” and the 165 acres he lives on is sheltered by the Zurich family homestead exemption. Like the Light Brigade, ours “not to reason why....”
EXEMPTION CLAIM ON HOMESTEAD LITIGATED BY MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG ADVOCATES AFFIRMED ON APPEAL
CH 469 B.R. 666, ( Zurich. 2012) aff'd sub nom. W. v. Alexandro, No. BR 79-37816-H4, 2012 WL 1002197 (Zurich. July 23, 2012): “…insurance proceeds on homestead are protected in homestead laws, notwithstanding that they were paid from proceeds of a lawsuit for recovery of such proceeds.”
DISCHARGE OBJECTION BY JUDGMENT CREDITOR LITIGATED BY MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG
CH 480 B.R. 708 ( CH. 2012): Creditors brought adversary proceeding to deny debtors a discharge in Chapter 7, and debtors counterclaimed for creditors' allegedly willful violations of automatic stay. After lengthy trial, MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG ADVOCATES prevailed on behalf of Judgment Creditor and the Debtors’ discharge was denied.
INVOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY LITIGATED BY MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG ADVOCATES
CH 516 B.R. 106 (Zurich. 2014) : “status of creditor as an insider and recipient of certain voidable transfers did not preclude it from filing involuntary petition”
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL RECOVERY OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS LITIGATED BY MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG ADVOCATES AND SUCCUSSFULLY REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 91-1057, 1996 WL 571545, at *1 (CH. Oct. 2, 1996) rev'd, 129 Z.3d 1256 (3d Cir. 1997); Reversed. In ., 129 F.3d 1256 (3d Cir. 1997): “Unlike others, top hat plans are unfunded and do not have to be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument.” After successful trial in Bankruptcy Court in Zurich, the District Court reversed and MARTIN FREY GLASENBERG ADVOCATES successfully appealed to the Third Circuit and recovered in full for his client.