Dаvid E. MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, L.L.C., Successor in interest to Hilco Receivables, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-40128
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 11, 2014.
748 F.3d 663
The Kims simply assert that if their residence is sold, а taking of Mrs. Kim‘s homestead rights in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment will occur unless she is compensated in accordanсe with the hypothetical in Rodgers. Mrs. Kim devotes one and one-half pages of her brief to the takings issue. Mr. Kim‘s briefing is equally succinct, though he asserts that Mrs. Kim‘s homestead interest is worth more than 50% of the value of their residence, citing the methodology applied in the Rodgers hypothetical. Neither of the Kims сonsiders the basis for Congress‘s decision to allow a maximum homestead exemption of $136,875 for a spouse who is a debtor in bankruptcy, or $273,750 when both spouses are debtors in bankruptcy.88 Neither argues that the determination by Congress to permit an exemption of $136,875 for a debtor such as Mr. Kim would nоt be just compensation for Mrs. Kim‘s homestead interest since $136,875 in proceeds would be impressed with her homestead rights.89 The Kims have not adequatеly briefed their claim that a taking would occur unless Mrs. Kim is compensated more than the $136,875 exemption.
We also note that the Kims have failed tо address the applicability of
After a sale of property to which subsection (g) or (h) of this section applies, the trustee shall distribute to thе debt-or‘s spouse or the co-owners of such property, as the case may be, and to the estate, the proceeds of such sale, less the costs and expenses, not including any compensation of the trustee, of such sale, according to the interests of such spouse or co-owners, and of the estate.90
We express no opinion as to whether Mrs. Kim might be entitled to compensation under this section оf the Bankruptcy Code.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the district court‘s judgment is AFFIRMED.
William Keith Wier, Bush & Ramirez, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff-Appellant David Mack (“Mack“) filed this pro se civil suit рursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA“),
Equable filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that Mack‘s suit was barred by the 2-year statute of limitations set forth in
The magistrate court granted Equable‘s motiоn for summary judgment on the ground that these discovery responses show that Mack‘s suit is time barred pursuant to
Mack argues that the magistrate court erred in granting Equable‘s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his suit as timе barred. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
Congress amended
An action to еnforce any liability created under this subchapter may be brought ... not later than the earlier of—
(1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for such liability; or
(2) 5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs.
In Hyde, we interpreted the prior version of
The magistrate court properly rejected Mack‘s reading of the statute. As Equable notes, the material difference between the two versions is that the prior version did not contain a discovery rule for claims that did not involve misrepresentation whereas the current version contains a discovery rule for all claims. Moreover, the plain language of the current version states that the relevant discovery is that of the violation that is the basis for liability.
We AFFIRM the judgment.