context: What "fairly concrete" means is not clear. However, the district court clearly did not define "property" in general, or "indirect economic benefit" in particular, only in terms of legal or equitable rights or ownership interest.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 183 B.R. 247, 247
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that tithing does not give debtors enforceable property right, contract right or equitable right to attend or partake in services offered by church
citation_a.sentence: Compare 148 B.R. at 891 (bankruptcy court arguably limited “property” to legal or equitable rights and things subject to ownership) with id. at 893-94 (value requires transfer of economic benefit to debtor’s estate); cf. In re Newman, 183 B.R. at 247 (noting that tithing does not give debtors enforceable property right, contract right or equitable right to attend or partake in services offered by church).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 148 B.R. 891, 891
citation_b.parenthetical: bankruptcy court arguably limited "property" to legal or equitable rights and things subject to ownership
citation_b.sentence: Compare 148 B.R. at 891 (bankruptcy court arguably limited “property” to legal or equitable rights and things subject to ownership) with id. at 893-94 (value requires transfer of economic benefit to debtor’s estate); cf. In re Newman, 183 B.R. at 247 (noting that tithing does not give debtors enforceable property right, contract right or equitable right to attend or partake in services offered by church).