Case Name: In the Matter of Mary Harp SHANKLES, doing business as Red River Reporter, Debtor. Mark Asher Weisbart, U.S. Trustee; Hynds & Gordon, P.C.; David N. McNees, doing business as Law Office of David N. McNees, Appellees v. Mary Harp Shankles, doing business as Red River Reporter, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-12
Citations: 554 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 13-40387
Parties: In the Matter of Mary Harp SHANKLES, doing business as Red River Reporter, Debtor. Mark Asher Weisbart, U.S. Trustee; Hynds & Gordon, P.C.; David N. McNees, doing business as Law Office of David N. McNees, Appellees v. Mary Harp Shankles, doing business as Red River Reporter, Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and GARZA and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Mary Harp SHANKLES, doing business as Red River Reporter, Debtor. Mark Asher Weisbart, U.S. Trustee; Hynds & Gordon, P.C.; David N. McNees, doing business as Law Office of David N. McNees, Appellees v. Mary Harp Shankles, doing business as Red River Reporter, Appellant.
No. 13-40387.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 2014.
Gary Alan Armstrong, Armstrong, Kel-lett & Bartholow, P.C., Charles Thomas Frazier, Jr., Esq., Alexander Dubose & Townsend, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Appel-lees.
John Paul Lewis, Jr., Esq., Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and GARZA and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Because we agree with the bankruptcy court that Mary Harp Shankles obtained a "vested economic interest" in her homestead property only by the 2009 distribution deed, we affirm. Wallace v. Rogers (In re Rogers), 513 F.3d 212, 223 (5th Cir.2008). We further agree with the bankruptcy court that any relevant prior deeds, conveyances, or agreements were rendered null and void ab initio, and that parties cannot contract around the 11 U.S.C. § 522(p)(l) 1,215-day "look-back" period.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.