Garran v. SMS Financial V, LLC (In re Garran)’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.3d 1 · 2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Stornawaye Financial Corp. v. Hill (2009), Hildebrandt v. Collins (In Re Hildebrandt) (2005)
3 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522
Relies on Owen v. Owen · Weinstein Llc v. W · Dodge v. State Board of Tax Commissioners · East Cambridge Savings Bank v. Silveira · Shamban v. Masidlover
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e must predict how the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would interpret the statute. Caron v. Farmington Nat’l Bank (In re Caron), 82 F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir.1996). Because homestead laws are “designed to benefit the homestead declarant and his or her family by protecting the family residence from the claims of creditors,” Massachusetts courts have “construed the State homestead exemptions liberally in favor of debtors.” Shamban v. Masidlover, 429 Mass. 50 , 705 N.E.2d 1136 , 1138 (1999). Nevertheless, liberal construction does not mean that courts can extend the protection of the homestead exemptions when doing so would contradict the “plain and unambiguous” language of the statute. See id.[, 705 N.E.2d] at 1139 (finding the debtor’s homestead declaration invalid for failure to file the proper documentation as the statute explicitly required). Consequently, we must turn to the words of the statute in question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Melber · In Re Gray“For purposes of ... [§ 522(f)(1)], a hen shall be considered to impair an exemption to the extent that the sum of— (I) the hen; (ii) all other hens in the property; and (in) the amount of the exemption that the debtor could claim if there were no hens on the property; exceeds the value that the debtor’s interest in the property would have in the absence of any hens.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An estate of homestead to the extent of $300,000 in the land and buildings may be acquired pursuant to this chapter by an owner or owners of a home or one or all who rightfully possess the premise by lease or otherwise and who occupy or intend to occupy said home as a principal residence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.