
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 96-1684                           IN RE:  ROBERT J. SPENLINHAUER,                                       Debtor.                              _________________________                                ROBERT J. SPENLINHAUER,                                      Appellant,                                          v.                                 SPENCER PRESS, INC.,                                      Appellee.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                              _________________________               Christopher  B. Branson,  with  whom E.  Stephen Murray  and               _______________________              __________________          Murray, Plumb & Murray were on brief, for appellant.          ______________________               Stephen  G. Morrell,  with whom  Eaton, Peabody,  Bradford &               ___________________              ___________________________          Veague, P.A. was  on brief,  for Joseph V.  O'Donnell, Chapter  7          ____________          trustee.                U. Charles Remmel, II, with  whom Kelly, Remmel &  Zimmerman               _____________________             __________________________          was on brief, for appellee Spencer Press, Inc.                              _________________________                                  November 14, 1996                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.  After careful review of the briefs and the                    Per Curiam.                    __________          record  in this  matter, and  after consideration  of the  points          raised  by counsel at oral  argument, we see  no fairly debatable          question.   The  debtor sought  exclusion of the  res of  the JRS                                                            ___          Realty Trust (or, at least, his beneficial interest therein) from          the  bankruptcy estate  under 11  U.S.C.   541(c)(2)  (1994); the          trustee in bankruptcy obviously had standing to resist exclusion;          and the trustee timely voiced an objection to exclusion.  More to          the point, the self-settled JRS Realty Trust, of which the debtor          is  both  a settlor  and  a beneficiary,  contains  a spendthrift          clause which is vulnerable under  Maine law and which, therefore,          cannot  support  the  claim  for  exclusion.    Accordingly,  the          bankruptcy court did not  err in denying the debtor's  request to          withhold his interest in the trust from the bankruptcy estate.                    We have repeatedly stated    and today reaffirm    that          we will  not write at length  to explicate points that  have been          made  perfectly clear by lower courts.  Here, both the bankruptcy          court, In re Spenlinhauer, 182 B.R. 361 (Bankr. D. Me. 1995), and                 __________________          the district court, Spenlinhauer v. Spencer Press, Inc., 195 B.R.                              ____________    ___________________          543 (D. Me. 1996), have written comprehensive opinions explaining          why  the debtor's quest for exclusion  of his beneficial interest          in the JRS Realty  Trust from the bankruptcy estate is  doomed to          failure.  Thus, we need go no further, but, rather, we  summarily          affirm the judgment on the basis of the lower courts' opinions.                    Affirmed.                    ________                                          2
