Hanson v. Seaver, No. 16-6023 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter the bankruptcy court held that a Minnesota property tax refund under Minn. Stat. Ann. 290A.04 is not exempt under Section 550.37 (Subd. 14) of the Minnesota statutes as “government assistance based on need,” following this panel’s decision in Manty v. Johnson, debtor appealed. The BAP rejected debtor's claim that Johnson was implicitly overruled by the Eighth Circuit's subsequent opinion in In re Hardy. The BAP concluded that Hardy in no way alters the ruling in Johnson. The BAP explained that the amendments to the federal Additional Child Tax Credit statute discussed in Hardy have no bearing on the Minnesota property tax refund statute at issue here and in Johnson. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Saladino, Author, with Federman, Chief Judge, and Nail, Bankruptcy Judge] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court did not err in holding that a Minnesota property tax refund under Minn. Stat. Ann. Section 290A.04 was not exempt under Section 550.37 (Subd. 14) of the Minnesota statutes as "government assistance not based on need;" the Panel's decision in Manty v. Johnson, 509 B.R. 213 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2014) was not overruled by the Eighth Circuit in In Re Hardy, 787 F.3d 1189 (2015); Hardy dealt with Additional Child Tax Credits and has no bearing on the Minnesota property tax refund statute at issue in this case and in Johnson.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.