# Collins v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha

> Supreme Court of Iowa · March 16, 1988 · 421 N.W.2d 136

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523702

## Case

- **Full name:** Lavetta L. COLLINS, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of John v. Collins, and Margaret Birmingham, Administrator of the Estate of John v. Collins, Appellants, v. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF OMAHA, a Corporation, Ida County State Bank, Eugene Knop, and Alvin J. Ford, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** March 16, 1988
- **Citations:** 421 N.W.2d 136; 1988 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 66; 1988 WL 22666
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harris
- **Judges:** Carter, Harris, McGiverin, Schultz, Snell
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523702

## Opinion text

HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
My difference with the majority is a small one. The majority holds that nearly all of plaintiffs’ malpractice claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate. I think it all does.
All legal services which gave rise to the malpractice claim, all advice on the form and nature of the petition, the drafting and signing of it, were completed prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The majority salvages one part of the claim against one of the defendants by stating that the economic consequences of the challenged advice impacted after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. I disagree on both factual and legal grounds.
The majority states that the economic consequences of the alleged malpractice occurred after the filing of the bankruptcy petition. But even accepting plaintiffs’ legal theory they arose no later than with the filing.
Unlike the majority I think there is merit in Ford’s argument based on 11 U.S.C. section 541 (a)(1) which states that a bankruptcy estate comprises “all legal or equitable interest in the debtor in property as o/the commencement of the case.” (Emphasis added.) The majority dismisses the wording of the statute, stating it is not “designed to defeat property interests which ... vest in debtors after they have attained post filing ‘fresh start’ status.” (Emphasis added.)
I think the line drawn by congress is significant because it indicates when congress believed the interests of the bankrupt stopped being assigned to the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. section 541 (a)(1). The term “as of” suggests to me that congress was aware that claims be *141 longed in the bankruptcy estate unless they arose after the filing of the petition.
I would affirm.
McGIVERIN, C.J., joins this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523702. Public record. Not legal advice.