of law is authoritative to the extent necessary for the decision, and must be applied in subsequent cases to similarly situated parties. The Court found that the precedential effect of judicial opinions derives from the nature of judicial power, and the limitation place thereon by Article III of the United States Constitution. Any attempt to avoid the precedential effect of a prior decision merely because of a decision to not publish same would expand judicial power beyond the bounds envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. We, therefore, affirm the bankruptcy court’s conclusions in this case because we are bound by the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Wegner. Moreover, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions because we find that secti R. 235, 240 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1995) (<HOLDING>); In re Flitter, 181 B.R. 938, 941
holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary holding that a debtors technically incorrect exemption in a wrongful death claim based on west virginias homestead exemption stands as claimed because the trustee did not object to the exemption in time holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee holding that even though a transfer of property eg money incidentally benefits another it cannot be said as a matter of law or logic that the transaction was a fraudulent transfer as to the party benefited