In Re Andrew S. Bland & Sonnia J. Bland, Debtors. Fin. One v. Andrew S. Bland & Sonnia J. Bland, 760 F.2d 1252 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
In Re Andrew S. Bland & Sonnia J. Bland, Debtors. Fin. One v. Andrew S. Bland & Sonnia J. Bland, 760 F.2d 1252 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Henderson v. Belknap (In Re Henderson) (txwd, 1993-04-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Henderson v. Belknap (In Re Henderson)
W.D. Tex. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Bland, 760 F.2d 1252 (11th Cir.1985); In re Bradlow, 119 B.R. 330 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1990); In re Watson, 116 B.R. 837 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1990); In re Robinson, 114 B.R. 716 (D.Colo.1990); In re Calandriello, 107 B.R. 374 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989); In re Bird, No. 88-8184-Civ-Aronovitz, slip op. at 9 (S.D.Fla.1989), reversing, 84 B.R. 858 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1988); In re Underwood, 103 B.R. 849 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1989); In re Hutchinson, 92 B.R. 950 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1988); In re Sanderfoot, 92 B.R. 802 (E.D.Wisc.1988); In re Dixon, 85 B.R. 745 (E.D.Ohio 1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Andrew S. BLAND and Sonnia J. Bland, Debtors. FINANCE ONE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Andrew S. BLAND and Sonnia J. Bland, Defendants-Appellees
84-8646.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 21, 1985.
760 F.2d 1252
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30015
Richard V. Karlberg, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant., Guy W. Gupton, III, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Roney, Hill, Pittman.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This appeal presents two questions: (1) whether under the Georgia homestead exemption debtors may use 11 U.S.C.A. § 522(f) to avoid liens that encumber property they seek to exempt, and (2) whether 11 U.S.C.A. § 522(f) is available to Chapter 13 debtors. These issues were decided in the debtor’s favor by a panel of this Court in In re Hall, 752 F.2d 582 (11th Cir.1985). The same conclusion was reached by the district court in this case in entering judgment for the debtor.

Appellant, Finance One, concedes that In re Hall decides the matter if that decision is controlling in this Circuit. Appellant’s only argument is that since the decision was made by a quorum of two judges, the third judge not participating in the decision, it is not binding on this three judge panel. This argument is without merit. A panel opinion of this Court is always binding on a subsequent panel even if the decision is made by only a quorum.[*1253] Panel precedent in this Circuit can only be changed by the Court sitting en banc or by decision of the Supreme Court. United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1517 n. 2 (11th Cir.1984); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.