Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01427/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01427-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Franz Boening
Appellant
Robert L. Kaetzel
Debtor
Virginia L.W. Kaetzel
Debtor
Gary Alan Rosen
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1427

In Re: ROBERT L. KAETZEL; VIRGINIA L.W. KAETZEL,

Debtors.

-----------------------------------

FRANZ BOENING,

Creditor – Appellant,

v.

GARY ALAN ROSEN, Chapter 7 Trustee in 12-26705 WIL, 

Plaintiff in AP No. 13-042 WIL,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (8:14-cv-00668-JFM)

Submitted: October 27, 2015 Decided: November 17, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig B. Leavers, HOFMEISTER, BREZA & LEAVERS, Hunt Valley, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rand L. Gelber, Rockville, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Appeal: 15-1427 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1427 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Franz Boening appeals from the district court’s order 

affirming the order of the bankruptcy court denying Boening’s 

motion to compel the trustee to abandon the bankruptcy estate’s 

interest in a lien that was avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 548 

(2012). The bankruptcy court denied the motion, determining 

that the value to the bankruptcy estate of an avoided lien which 

is preserved for the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 551 (2012), 

is equal to the amount of the transfer avoided. We have 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we 

find no reversible error by either the bankruptcy court or the 

district court. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Boening v. Rosen, No. 8:14-cv-00668-JFM 

(D. Md. filed Mar. 20, 2015; entered Mar. 23, 2015). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-1427 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/17/2015 Pg: 3 of 3