| ABI

May 21, 2025

Segal v. Rochelle May Remain Good Law Only in Limited Circumstances

The elaborate definition of ‘estate property’ in Section 541(a) may have superseded the 1966 ‘sufficiently rooted’ analysis in Segal.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Macon.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

Macon v. Meredith (In re Macon), 09-41631 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. May 2, 2025)

Case Name

Macon v. Meredith (In re Macon)

Case Type

Consumer

Court

11th Circuit

Georgia

Georgia Southern District

Bankruptcy Tags

Claims

Consumer Bankruptcy

Comments

Submitted by Kenneth Edstrom on May 21, 2025

Segal v Rochelle, the case that will never die since Bankruptcy judges always reach for it in cases of contingent interests while ignoring the implications of Section 541(a)(1) in chapter 7 cases anyway (chapter 13 is different morass) - you value the estate as of the petition date - what would have someone paid for the rights to a potential malpractice claim that the debtor listed in his schedules without the benefit of hindsight? Not much. How about buying the rights to a malpractice case that might arise in the future? Can you value something that may never come into being? Where does the bankruptcy trustee get that power? Segal is a convenient crutch that should be thrown away.