Posted by NCBRC - November 17th, 2021
The county’s tax foreclosure sale of the debtor’s real property was avoidable as a fraudulent conveyance, and the debtor’s annuity was properly excluded from the calculation of the debtor’s insolvency for avoidance purposes where the creditor failed to object to the debtor’s claim of exemption with respect to the annuity. DuVall v. County of Ontario, NY, No. 21-6236 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2021).
In May, 2017, the debtor’s real property was sold to the Doe appellants in a tax foreclosure sale. In March, 2019, before title transferred, the debtor filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, listing an annuity of an undisclosed amount. The debtor claimed the annuity as exempt under section 522(d)(11)(E) and proposed a 100% plan including paying off the county’s tax claim. The debtor then filed a petition to avoid the tax lien under sections 522(h) and 548(a)(1)(B). The county failed to object to the claimed exemption for the annuity but filed a motion in limine to admit evidence as to its value. The bankruptcy court denied the motion in limine, and, in a separate order, granted the debtor’s motion to avoid the lien. DuVall v. County of Ontario, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 369 (W.D.N.Y. Bankr. 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 11th, 2021
A state default judgment lien was avoidable in bankruptcy under the court’s inherent power to police attorney conduct where the lien was security for unpaid attorney fees which were unreasonable. Moore v. Sanchez (In re Sanchez), No. 20-1267 (D. N.M. Sept. 22, 2021).
The debtor hired the creditor, Moore, to represent him in his divorce case. The case went two months without a fee agreement, then Moore presented the debtor with a bill for fees and costs in the amount of $15,000. The debtor paid him $7,000 and they reached a compromise as to the remaining portion of the bill. They entered into a retainer agreement providing for a 2% monthly interest rate on unpaid fees and an automatic lien on the debtor’s personal and real property as security. In January, 2011, Moore sued the debtor in state court to collect unpaid fees. The court awarded Moore a default judgment of $18,732.64 at 24% interest per year. By February, 2018, the debt had grown to $50,073.90, and Moore moved for foreclosure on the debtor’s home. The debtor filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. In his petition, the debtor valued the house at $55,300.00 and claimed it as fully exempt. He also listed the debt to Moore as secured and disputed. He moved to avoid the judicial lien against his exempt property. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 13th, 2021
Where the Additional Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit were both intended to benefit low-income households and were not limited by taxes owed, they were properly deemed “public assistance” under state exemption laws. In re Moreno, — B.R. —-, 2021 WL 1904189 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. May 11, 2021) (case no. 3:20-bk-42855). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 8th, 2021
Insurance proceeds for the repair of the debtor’s fire-destroyed house are not considered when calculating impairment to the debtor’s homestead exemption where the debtor had not made any repairs on the house prior to filing for bankruptcy. Waltrip v. Sawyers, No. 20-1130 (8th Cir. July 2, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - June 19th, 2021
Under sections 724(a) and 551, the chapter 7 trustee could avoid the penalty portion of a federal tax lien on the debtor’s homestead property and preserve the value of the avoided lien for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate. United States of America v. Warfield, 2021 WL 1530094 (D. Ariz. April 19, 2021) (case no. 3:20-cv-8204). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - June 9th, 2021
Where the Arizona debtors were subject to Kansas exemption law but could not actually take any exemptions due to residency requirements, they were entitled to use federal exemptions under section 522(d). Mackenzie v. Schreiber (In the Matter of Schreiber), No. 20-1993 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 15th, 2021
A debtor may claim the California automatic homestead exemption with respect to property where he resides even though the property was owned by a trust created by his father and he and his brother were equal beneficiaries of the trust. In re Nolan, 2021 WL 528679, No. 20-1496 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 6th, 2021
Adopting a plain-meaning approach, the Second Circuit found a debtor may avoid a lien that impairs her exemption on property her dependent son lives in part-time but is not his primary residence. Donovan v. Maresca (In re Maresca), No. 19-3331 (2d Cir. Dec. 14, 2020).
The debtor lived in an apartment, and her ex-husband lived in the marital residence (the Property) which he and the debtor owned jointly. They had joint custody of their dependent son whose primary residence was with his mother but who spent several days a week with his father in the Property as his “non-primary” residence. At the time the debtor filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, her divorce lawyer had a judgment lien on the Property securing almost $71,000 in legal fees. She claimed an exemption on her interest in the Property under section 522(d) and sought to avoid the lien under section 522(f)(1)(A) as impairing that exemption. The bankruptcy court granted the debtor’s motion to avoid the lien. The district court affirmed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 10th, 2020
When the debtor failed to reinvest the proceeds from the sale of his exempt homestead within the period required by state homestead exemption law, the exemption vanished. McCallister v. Wells (In re Wells), No. 20-86 (D. Idaho Oct. 14, 2020).
The debtor filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy and listed the equity in his home as exempt under Idaho law. During his bankruptcy, he sold the home in order to use the proceeds to pay off one of his creditors. He did not reinvest in a new home as required by Idaho exemption law. The trustee sought to capture the proceeds of the sale for the bankruptcy estate on the basis that the debtor’s homestead exemption vanished when the debtor sold the home without reinvesting within one year. The bankruptcy court overruled the trustee’s objection to the exemption. The trustee appealed to the district court. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 9th, 2020
Where the judicial lien against the debtor was fully satisfied before the debtor filed his bankruptcy petition, the transfer of funds from his IRA used to satisfy the lien was not an avoidable transfer under section 547 or section 522(f) or (h). Elliott v. Pacific Western Bank, No. 18-17421 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2020).
When the debtor defaulted on a loan held by Pacific Western Bank, PWB obtained a state court judgment against him and instituted a levy against the debtor’s employee retirement plan (IRA). Under California law, the funds in the debtor’s IRA were exempt only to the extent they were necessary for the debtor’s post-retirement support. The state court issued an executory lien against the debtor’s IRA, and PWB garnished the funds to cover the amount owed. Three months later, the debtor filed chapter 7 bankruptcy. After he received his discharge, he filed an adversary complaint seeking to recover the funds garnished from his IRA under the theory that they were exempt under state law and section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. PWB argued that the funds were not exempt in the bankruptcy proceeding because the lien had been fully executed prior to the filing of the bankruptcy and, therefore, they did not become part of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court agreed. The district court affirmed. Read More
