In Re Marenaro

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that lots adjacent to the single-family house that were being used as a yard and parking area constituted incidental property to the principal residence
• holding that lots adjacent to the single-family house that were being used as a yard and parking area constituted incidental property to the principal residence
• indicating that “an abstract potential to use property in a different way, never amounting to more than a gleam in the eye of the owner,” is insufficient to deny a mortgagee the protection of the anti-modification language
• finding boilerplate “add-on” of additional collateral “in mineral rights, profits, and the like... to be no more than an enhancement within the French rule”
• other lots subject to mortgage could have, but were not, used for other purposes, so modification was not allowed
• Judge Hillman held that the reference date is the date most favorable to the debtor, but limited the holding to the facts before the court; Judge Carlo concurred in the result but found that the relevant reference date was the date the loan originated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).