Case Name: In re Lois Yvonne SISEMORE, a/k/a Lois Yvonne Sisemore Jabri, bankrupt. St. Clair NEWBERN, III, Trustee, Appellant, v. Lois Yvonne SISEMORE, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1979-09-17
Citations: 602 F.2d 742
Docket Number: No. 79-1709
Parties: In re Lois Yvonne SISEMORE, a/k/a Lois Yvonne Sisemore Jabri, bankrupt. St. Clair NEWBERN, III, Trustee, Appellant, v. Lois Yvonne SISEMORE, Appellee.
Judges: Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJO-FLAT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 602
Pages: 742–742

Head Matter:
In re Lois Yvonne SISEMORE, a/k/a Lois Yvonne Sisemore Jabri, bankrupt. St. Clair NEWBERN, III, Trustee, Appellant, v. Lois Yvonne SISEMORE, Appellee.
No. 79-1709
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 17, 1979.
St. Clair Newbern, III, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.
Clifford F. McMaster, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.
Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJO-FLAT, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409. Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this case we affirm the district court's decision that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding: first, that the late filing of objections to the Trustee's Report of Exempt Property did not prevent consideration of those objections under the circumstances of this case, i.e., physical incapacity of the attorney, lack of surprise to the trustee or prejudice to the administration of the estate, and the fact that the litigated vehicle remained with the bankrupt at all times, see Rules Bankr.P. 403(e), 924 and Advisory Committee's Note; and second, both the automobile and the jeep used in connection with maintaining "large areas and landscape, hedges, flower beds and mowing grass" are exempt under Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3836(a)(3) (Vernon). See Hickman v. Hickman, 149 Tex. 439, 234 S.W.2d 410 (1950); Meritz v. Palmer, 266 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1959). We need not decide whether two identical automobiles of identical use would be exempt under that statute.
AFFIRMED.