Property interest; Whether the property was removed from the plaintiff’s bankruptcy estate by exemption &/or abandonment; 11 USC § 541(a)(1); Owen v. Owen; Abandonment defined; § 554; Szyszlo v. Akowitz

The court held that because the undisputed record evidence supported that plaintiff-White “did not have a property interest in the crops, fencing, and fish on the [property], the trial court did not err by granting” the defendants-Knapps summary disposition. White purchased the real property in 1990. He later filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was converted to Chapter 7. The bankruptcy court ordered the bankruptcy trustee to sell the property. The trustee entered into a purchase agreement with the Knapps, and the bankruptcy court confirmed the sale. White argued that the crops, fencing, and fish in the pond at the property were not part of the bankruptcy estate and thus, were not transferred to the Knapps pursuant to the trustee’s deed. White claimed “that he retained a legal interest in the property because he claimed statutory exemptions and because the trustee abandoned the bankruptcy estate’s interest in the property.” The record did not support his claim. The property was transferred to the Knapps on 8/5/15. The bankruptcy court ruled that White was entitled to certain exemptions for property unrelated to the appeal, and “specifically held that White was not entitled to an exemption ‘as to the hay.’” A bankruptcy court order “further held that ‘to the extent property . . . is owned by a third party or a non-debtor entity, the property shall be administered by the trustee.’” In a later order, it explicitly held that the property had already been sold and was “not abandoned and [would] continue to be administered by the Trustee.” It subsequently issued another order that denied White’s request for various exemptions, “including any exemption ‘for hay, crops, and pasture.’” Thus, the record did “not support that the crops, fencing, and fish were abandoned or excluded from the bankruptcy estate.” Also, the court held that his argument was not supported by the plain language of the bankruptcy court’s order and the trustee’s deed. There was “no evidence in the record that the parties agreed that White would retain rights in any attributes of the subject property, and the bankruptcy court expressly denied White’s request or ‘any exemption for hay, crops, and pasture’” at the property.