11 U.S.C. § 522

A nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on exempt household furnishings is avoidable under section 522(f)(2)(A) in Chapter 13.

Barker v. Household Finance (In Re Barker) · filed 1982-03-08§ 522(f)(2)(A)

the plaintiffs have judgment against the defendant, Household Finance, avoiding Household Finance’s nonpossessory, nonpur-chase-money security interest in the plaintiffs’ household goods and furnishings, to the extent that said security interest impairs the plaintiffs’ exemption under South Carolina law.

A lender’s additional collateral and a renewal do not make a purchase-money security interest avoidable when the remaining purchase-price debt can be allocated; only the nonpurchase-money balance may be avoided.

Credithrift of America v. Littlejohn (In Re Littlejohn) · filed 1982-03-06§ 522(f)

Credithrift is the holder of a valid purchase money security interest in household goods in the amount of $1157.59, which is not subject to avoidance by the debtors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

A debtor may amend an exemption claim while the case remains open when no party has materially relied on the earlier omission.

In Re Vest · filed 1982-03-08§ 522(g)

That being the case, this Court will allow the debtor to amend his claim of exemptions.

A gun cabinet is household furnishings within section 522(f), so the debtor may avoid the lien on it, while the lien on the guns themselves is treated separately.

McPherson v. Associates Financial Services (In Re McPherson) · filed 1982-03-08§ 522(f)

Therefore, insofar as the gun cabinet is concerned, plaintiffs may void the lien held by defendant on said property.

A bankruptcy case may be reopened after discharge for a section 522(f) lien-avoidance complaint, but a creditor’s completed replevin action may support a laches defense.

Towns v. Postal Finance Co. (In Re Towns) · filed 1982-02-08§ 522(f)(2)(A)

This Court will reopen a case to hear a § 522(f) complaint if relief can be accorded the debtor.

Section 522(f) lien-avoidance actions are not barred by discharge, but a debtor’s delay may be barred by laches; the court denied avoidance on the facts presented.

Matter of Conley · filed 1982-02-09§ 522(f)

It is the opinion of this Court that actions for lien avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) are not barred by discharge.

A Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare confession-of-judgment lien is a judicial lien avoidable under section 522(f)(1) to the extent it impairs a real-estate exemption.

Hoffa v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare (In Re Hoffa) · filed 1982-02-17§ 522(f)(1)

We conclude that the lien of DPW is a judicial lien which is avoidable under § 522(f)(1) to the extent that it impairs the exemption claimed by the debtor in her real estate.

Adding nonpurchase-money collateral in a loan modification does not destroy the purchase-money character of the original collateral; the security interest is avoidable only to the extent purchase-price debt cannot be allocated.

Transamerica Financial Services v. Matthews (In Re Matthews) · filed 1982-02-17§ 522(f)(2)

We therefore conclude that Transameri-ca’s security interest is not avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2) unless, on remand, the trial court is unable to determine the amount of total indebtedness that is alloca-ble to the purchase price.

Section 522(f)(2) may avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest created after the Bankruptcy Code was enacted but before it took effect, without violating due process.

Singleton v. Barclay American (In re Singleton) · filed 1981-10-05§ 522(f)(2)

The court concurs with the result Judge Reynolds reached in In re Osborne, 11 B.R. 610 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C.1981) and holds that the application of section 522(f)(2) to avoid security interests created after November 6, 1978, the date of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code, does not violate the Fifth Amendment.

An assignee’s lien on household goods is nonpurchase-money when the assignor’s underlying agreements were nonpurchase-money, and the debtor may avoid it to the extent it impairs the exemption.

Haus v. Barclays American Corp. (In Re Haus) · filed 1982-01-06§ 522(f)(2)(A)

The defendants hold nonpurchase-money security interests in household goods and furnishings that are held primarily for the debtors’ personal and household use. Thus, the debtors may avoid the defendants’ security interests to the extent which they impair the debtors’ exemption.

A loan used to pay antecedent debts secured by household goods is nonpurchase-money, so the resulting lien is avoidable under section 522(f)(2)(A).

Manuel v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Manuel) · filed 1981-12-02§ 522(f)(2)(A)

Blazer’s loan did not enable the plaintiffs to acquire rights in or the use of the household goods and furnishings in question, therefore, Blazer does not have a purchase-money security interest; instead it holds a nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods and furnishings which may be avoided pursuant to § 522(f)(2)(A).

A renewal note securing previously purchased household appliances is nonpurchase-money, so its security interest is avoidable under section 522(f).

Rosen v. Associates Financial Services Co. · filed 1982-02-05§ 522(f)(2)

Therefore, the security interest held under the renewal note is nonpurchase money security interest and is avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods.

Lee v. Davis/McGraw, Inc. (In Re Lee) · filed 1994-07-18(f)(2)(A)

By motion filed December 10, 1993 the debtor, Arlinda Arnita Lee seeks to avoid the security interest of her creditor Davis/McGraw, Inc. (“Davis/McGraw”) in certain household goods and furnishings pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A). ... The debt secured in this case by the Davis/ McGraw contract contains both purchase money and nonpurchase money components. Accordingly, in the absence of a saving payment allocation formula provided by contract or state statute, the security interest of Davis/McGraw cannot retain purchase money status as it secures more than the “price” of the collateral purchased in the transaction in which the interest was created.

Section 522(f)(2) permits a debtor to avoid the nonpurchase-money portion of a lien on household goods after refinancing, while the purchase-money portion remains protected to the extent of the unpaid purchase price.

In Re Short · filed 1994-07-21(f)(2)

Once the purchase price of an item has been paid, any security interest remaining in it becomes a nonpurchase money security interest and is avoidable under § 522(f)(2).

The court held that a debtor may combine Georgia’s household-goods and wildcard exemptions, allowing full avoidance of a qualifying lien under § 522(f)(2).

Matter of Ambrose · filed 1995-03-29(f)(2)(A)

I agree with his rationale and hold that Debtors are entitled to exempt the full value of the loveseat and sofa, as well as the washer and dryer, under O.C.G.A. §§ 44-13-100(a)(4) and (6). As a result, American General’s lien in these items is fully avoidable pursuant to section 522(f)(2) because it impairs Debtors’ enjoyment of their exemption in these items.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in exempt household goods, including a lien arising from a later novation after the Code’s effective date.

Averhoff v. Peoples Finance Co. (In Re Averhoff) · filed 1982-03-05(f)(2)(A)

Consistent with the Bruntz opinion, the Court holds that the application of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) to avoid nonpossessory, non-purchase-money security interests created after the Code’s effective date does not violate the Fifth Amendment. ... The Court is not persuaded by Peoples’ argument. Instead, the Court holds that the second and third combined notes and agreements were novations of the prior notes and agreements and that the October 10, 1979 lien on the original collateral may be avoided as a prospective application of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). ... The Court, therefore, concludes that Peoples’ nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in Debtors’ original collateral and additional collateral may be avoided by the Debtors pursuant to § 522(f)(2)(A).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods to the extent it impairs an exemption, and a state’s alternative exemption scheme does not by itself opt out of that federal lien-avoidance protection.

in Re Joseph Thomas Maddox and Mary Nell Maddox, Debtors. Joseph Thomas Maddox and Mary Nell Maddox v.… · filed 1983-09-09(f)(2)(A)

The Georgia exemptions provided as an alternative to 11 U.S.C. § 522(d) are available to an individual debtor seeking to avoid security interests through subsections (f) and (b). Subsection (b), which determines which items may be freed of security interests under subsection (f), also provides that "an individual debtor may exempt from property of the estate ... any property that is exempt under ... State or local law that is applicable on the date of filing of the petition." ... If the court were to adopt the interpretation urged by the appellant, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A) would be a meaningless provision. ... This court must reject the appellant's narrow interpretation of the phrase "debtor's interest." The word "interest" is a broad term encompassing many rights of a party, tangible, intangible, legal and equitable, and the court will not redefine the term to reach the result sought by the appellant. ... This court finds persuasive Judge Dyer's argument that the federal statute does not permit a state to "opt out" of the lien avoidance provisions of § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(2) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in certain exempt household goods to the extent it impairs an exemption.

Pine v. Credithrift of America, Inc. (In Re Pine) · filed 1981-05-26(f)(2)

From the above legislative history and commentary the court finds that § 522 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 does provide for the avoiding of defendant’s nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interest in plaintiffs’ household goods which were claimed as exempt.

Section 522(f)(2) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interest in specified household goods when it impairs an exemption available under § 522(b), even if the debtor has no equity in the property.

In re Bardwell · filed 1981-10-05(f)(2)

Therefore, this Court follows its previous holding in In re Noland, 13 B.R. 766 (D.Kan.1981), opinion which is adopted and incorporated by reference, where this Court held that a debtor has an exempt-able interest in property, with or without equity. Therefore, since Dial Finance’s lien impairs an interest that could be exempted under § 522(b) via K.S.A. 60-2304, the debtors’ application to avoid Dial Finance’s lien under § 522(f)(2) is sustained.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on household goods that impairs an exemption.

Morris v. Associates Finance Co. (In Re Morris) · filed 1981-06-24(f)(2)(A)

At to those cases, § 522(f)(2)(A) is held to be controlling, and the liens created on household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel and appliances owned by the debtor prior to incurring the debt for which they were to act as a security interest are held to be void.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase money lien on household goods to the extent it impairs an exemption.

In Re Hobdy · filed 1982-02-05(f)(2)(A)

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the debtors’ motion to avoid the lien of Beneficial on a washer and dryer be and is sustained, and the lien is so avoided as a nonpossessory, nonphrchase money security interest in household goods pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in specified household goods when it impairs an exemption.

McKelvey v. USLife Credit Corp. (In Re McKelvey) · filed 1982-05-20(f)(2)(A)

Thus, USLife has precisely the lien on household which § 522(f) allows the debtor to avoid. The debtor’s property, but for the lien, is exempt. Therefore, the fixing of the lien can be and has been avoided and the exemption restored.

Section 522(f)(2) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in exempt household furnishings and household goods when the lien impairs the debtor’s exemption.

Bledsoe v. Household Finance Corp. (In Re Bledsoe) · filed 1983-03-04(f)(2)

It is further undisputed that Defendant’s lien impairs Debtors’ exemption rights in such household furnishings and household goods, O.R.C. § 2329.66(A)(3) and (4), and that Defendant’s lien is thus prima facie avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods when it impairs an available exemption.

In Re Griffiths · filed 1988-03-21(f)(2)(A)

We believe the standards articulated by the courts in Coleman and in Bandy are appropriate for defining the scope of the Washington State household goods exemption provision in light of the lack of any limiting language therein and the policy for liberal construction of Washington’s exemption statutes. ... Applying the standards from Coleman and Bandy, we find that the sports equipment and camera at issue here are also exempt under Washington law. Accordingly, we conclude that all the items of collateral involved here are articles that would be considered by a Washington court to be exempt household property.

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes when it impairs an exemption.

Caruthers v. Fleet Finance, Inc. (In Re Caruthers) · filed 1988-06-03(f)

This court adopts that definition and concludes that the television and stereo system are household goods under Section 522 and thus may be claimed as exempt.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits avoidance of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods held primarily for personal, family, or household use when it impairs an exemption.

In Re Champion · filed 1988-09-07(f)(2)(A)

Having analyzed the law in this area, the Court concludes that the term “household goods” in Section 522(f)(2)(A) should be given a broad definition.

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on household goods when it impairs an exemption.

In Re Brendlinger · filed 1990-07-02(f)

The court further finds that the Debtor is entitled to avoid the lien of AGCDC in other household items listed on the second Security Agreement insofar as the lien is a non-possessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods held by the Debt- or for personal use and impairs an exemption to which the Debtor is entitled.

A Pennsylvania cognovit-note lien is a judicial lien subject to section 522(f)(1), and applying the section to such a lien is constitutional.

Commonwealth National Bank v. United States · filed 1982-01-06§ 522(f)(1)

We hold, then, that Section 522(f)(1) applies to cognovit note judgment liens, and that as applied it is constitutional.

Section 522(b)(2)(A) does not permit an exemption in postpetition rental proceeds when no basis for the exemption existed at either the original petition or conversion to Chapter 7.

Armstrong v. Harris (In re Harris) · filed 1989-09-26(b)(2)(A)

We conclude that no basis for the debtors’ claimed exemption existed at the time of their chapter 11 petition or conversion of their case to chapter 7.

Section 522(b)(3)'s hanging paragraph permits a debtor to claim federal exemptions under § 522(d) only when the debtor is ineligible for any state exemption; eligibility for even one state exemption precludes federal exemptions.

Mullen v. Peters · filed 2024-11-25(b)(3)

Section 522(b)(3) allows a debtor to claim federal exemptions under § 522(d) when the debtor is “ineligible for any exemption.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3) (emphasis added). ... Therefore, because Debtor qualifies for the life insurance exemption under Ohio law, he is ineligible to claim federal exemptions under the hanging paragraph.

A debtor who could have elected federal exemptions and challenged an invalid state opt-out provision may be barred from switching to federal exemptions after the exemption schedules become final.

In Re Brewer · filed 1982-01-12§ 522(b)

By failing to pursue this course of action, the debtors in this case have effectively waived any right to now claim the federal exemptions.

Congress intended section 522(f) to apply to pre-enactment security interests, but the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that this retroactive application violates due process.

United States v. Postal Finance Co. of California (In Re DeBose) · filed 1982-01-12§ 522(f)

The Panel holds that, although Congress intended that 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) be applied to security interests created prior to the enactment of the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act, such an application would be contrary to the due process protections provided by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid a nonpurchase-money security interest in exempt household goods.

Mulcahy v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. (In Re Mulcahy) · filed 1980-03-28(f)

Since the security interest is nonpurchase-money, it is avoidable by plaintiffs under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) (1979).

A pickup truck used in farming and part-time electrical work qualifies as a tool of trade under section 522(d)(6), and the debtor may apply the section 522(d)(5) spillover exemption to avoid the lien under section 522(f)(2)(B).

Eagan v. Household Finance Corp. (In Re Eagan) · filed 1982-01-15§§ 522(d)(5), 522(d)(6), 522(f)(2)(B)

certain 1975 Chevrolet %-ton pick-up truck be and the same is declared to be a tool of the trade of the Debtor, and it is further ORDERED that the spillover exemption of Code § 522(d)(5) may be applied to this 1975 Chevrolet 3/i-ton pick-up truck, and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to Code § 522(f)(2)(B) that the security interest of HFC dated August 28, 1978 in and to the aforesaid 1975 Chevrolet 3/4-ton pick-up truck is declared void.

A bankruptcy discharge does not eliminate a valid prepetition lien that was not avoided under section 522 or another avoidance provision; the lien remains enforceable against exempt or nonexempt property.

In Re Childers · filed 1981-12-17§ 522(c)

It is well settled that a bankruptcy discharge will not prevent a creditor from enforcing in a post discharge proceeding valid liens against either exempt or nonexempt property.

Section 522(d)(6) exempts qualifying tools of the trade, while § 522(d)(5) permits a debtor to exempt any property up to the statutory dollar limits.

Matter of Stubenhofer · filed 1983-07-14(d)(6), (d)(5)

The claim that the license is subject to the exemption of $750.00 under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(6) for "implements, professional books or tools of the trade of the debtor" is disallowed on the ground that a license confers a right or privilege to transact a type of business, and is not a professional book or a tool or implement by means of which acts involved in the conduct of a trade or business are performed. Such right or privilege is, however, " property " in our opinion included in the subject matter of the exemption " in any property " provided in 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) not to exceed the value of $400.00 plus any unused amount of the homestead exemption, subject, however, to the power of the Commonwealth to regulate, to approve or disapprove transfer of, and for reasons specified in applicable legislation and regulations, revoke such license. It is our opinion that the rights of the debtors in the subject liquor license are subject to their claim for exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) subject to the above mentioned powers of regulation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania free and clear of any security interest of the defendants, Charles A. Kienholz and Paul Pelinsky and wife, under their alleged security interests, and said alleged security interests are declared null, void and of no effect.

Section 522(d)(6) permits a debtor to exempt a limited interest in tools of the trade, but not property that is not being used as a trade tool.

In re Reeves · filed 2014-01-29(d)(6)

Because it is undisputed that Mr. Reeves was not using the 2010 Dodge Truck as a tool of his trade on the Conversion Date, this Court finds that the Debtors, under oath, deliberately listed the “tools of the trade” exemption with respect to the 2010 Dodge Truck despite knowing that they were not entitled to such an exemption. ... Accordingly, the Court sustains the Trustee’s objection with respect to the 2010 Dodge Truck, and disallows the “tools of the trade” exemption that the Debtors claimed with respect to the 2010 Dodge Truck on the 3/22 Amended Schedules. ... Therefore, the Debtors need to turn over $4,350.00 to the Trustee, representing the improperly claimed exemption under § 522(d)(6) on the 3/22 Amended Schedules [Finding of Fact No. 47].

Section 522(d)(6) exempts up to $750 in implements, professional books, or tools of the debtor’s or a dependent’s trade.

In Re Vigil · filed 1982-09-20(d)(6)

The Court has loosely referred to the exemption contained in 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(6) as “inventory.” However, the exact wording of the exemption is as follows: “The debtor’s aggregate interest, not to exceed $750 in value, in any implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor.” ... Technically this inventory is not tools of the trade since at the time of filing, the Debtor had no trade.

A state statutory lien on exempt personal-injury proceeds is avoidable under sections 545(2) and 522(h) when it was not perfected or enforceable against a bona fide purchaser at filing; the debtor’s exemption objection therefore prevails.

Connecticut v. Leach (In Re Leach) · filed 1981-12-24§§ 522(c), 522(g), 522(h), 522(d)(11)(D)

the objection of the State of Connecticut to the exemption claimed by the debtor as to the settlement proceeds from his personal injury claim is overruled.

Section 522(d)(5)’s “any property” language covers only property types described in subsection (d), not any property without limitation.

La Flamme v. Finance America Corp. (In re La Flamme) · filed 1981-05-01§ 522(d)(5)

Accordingly, I conclude that Congress did not use the phrase ‘any property’ in the broad sense proposed by the Debtors. Finance America’s objection to the Debtors’ claim of exemption of a ‘Consumer Credit Protection Act claim’ is sustained.

In an opt-out state, state law defines the property a debtor may claim exempt under section 522(b).

In Re Hill · filed 1981-05-05§ 522(b)

The debtors then may exempt from property of the estate certain property as allowed to them pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). In Ohio, the state legislature, through its enactment of Ohio Rev.Code § 2329.662, ‘opted out’ of the federal exemptions set out in § 522(d) of the Bankruptcy Code by making the election available to states through § 522(b)(1). Therefore, state law defines in this case the property these debtors’ may claim as exempt.

A debtor may avoid a judgment lien under section 522(f)(1) when the debtor’s full state homestead exemption leaves no nonexempt equity for the lien to attach to.

Nelson v. Kramer (In Re Nelson) · filed 1981-05-05§ 522(f)(1)

The court therefore concludes that Nelson as plaintiff-debtor is entitled to claim the full $12,000.00 Oregon homestead exemption against his half interest in the property. Since no nonexempt equity remains to which the lien of Kramer the defendant-creditor can attach, such lien is voidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) and judgment should be entered accordingly.

Adding prior furniture purchases to a later installment contract makes the resulting security interest non-purchase-money, recordable, and avoidable under section 522(f).

Buchanan v. Leader Furniture Co. (In Re Buchanan) · filed 1981-05-05§ 522(f)

The ‘add on’ of the previous secured transactions to the latest transaction makes them non-purchase money and hence recordable, and hence avoidable.

Section 522(b) does not allow a debtor to claim a homestead exemption in property the debtor did not own when the bankruptcy case began.

McCall v. Barnett Bank of Columbia County (In Re McCall) · filed 1987-06-17(b)

Having determined that debtor could not claim as exempt homestead an undivided one-half interest in the 102 acre parcel as of the date of filing or immediately prior thereto because he did not have an ownership interest in the property and his claims under § 522 must fail, the Court declines to address § 548.

Section 522(f)(2) cannot be applied to a security interest perfected before the Bankruptcy Reform Act’s enactment because doing so would take vested property rights without compensation.

Household Finance Corp. v. Carroll (In Re Carroll) · filed 1981-05-06§ 522(f)(2)

As neither 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2) nor any other section of the Bankruptcy Code provides the plaintiff with ‘just compensation,’ section 522(f)(2) may not be applied to deprive plaintiff of its ‘substantive rights’ in the collateral.

Virginia’s opt-out of the federal exemptions does not eliminate section 522(f), and each spouse may claim a separate state homestead exemption against a post-enactment judgment lien.

Dickens v. Snellings (In Re Snellings) · filed 1981-05-08§§ 522(b), 522(d), 522(f)

From the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that each Debtor is entitled to claim their separate $5,000.00 homestead exemption and that such exemption may be relieved of the burden of the Plaintiff’s judgment lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(b)(1) permits Virginia to opt out of the federal exemptions, making its opt-out statute constitutional and barring the claimed section 522(d) exemptions.

In Re White · filed 1981-05-11§§ 522(b)(1), 522(d)

Accordingly, this Court finds that § 34-3.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, is constitutional, and that Sandra K. White is not entitled to the exemptions claimed by her under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d).

Section 522(f) determines a security interest’s possessory status by how the lien initially attached and became enforceable, and later repossession does not change that status.

Meadows v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Stanley (In Re Meadows) · filed 1987-04-29(f)

The court therefore concludes that the proper analysis under § 522(f) is simply to determine how the lien initially attached and became enforceable against the debtor. ... It was not a possessory security interest, and the subsequent repossession of the collateral does not alter this status for the purposes of § 522(f).

A valid lien survives bankruptcy and remains enforceable against the collateral notwithstanding the debtor’s exemptions.

General Electric Credit Corp. v. Bullock (In Re Bullock) · filed 1981-05-12§ 522(c)(2)

Recent case law to the contrary notwithstanding, it is also abundantly clear that a valid lien survives bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2). A secured creditor has cognizable and enforceable rights in the collateral and is entitled to the protection of the Court.

Section 522(f) may constitutionally be applied to liens created after enactment but before the Code’s effective date.

Lumpkins v. Beneficial Finance Co. (In Re Lumpkins) · filed 1981-05-14§ 522(f)

However, the weight of authority, and in my opinion, the better reasoned decisions hold that § 522(f) is applicable to liens and security interest created before the Code became effective, but after its enactment date, and that such an application does not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to void a judicial lien to the extent necessary to preserve the debtor’s homestead exemption.

Pitre v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Pitre) · filed 1981-05-18§§ 522(d)(1), 522(f)(1)

This court interprets section 522(f), which reads in part as follows: ‘[T]he debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien ... to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled ...,’ to mean that under section 522 the Debtors may void First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago’s lien to the extent of $20,650.42 plus the amount of interest on the claim.

After a trustee avoids a transfer and sufficient equity remains, the debtor may claim the section 522(d)(1) exemption under sections 522(c) and (g).

In Re Paolini · filed 1981-05-19§§ 522(c), 522(d)(1)

As it appears from the record that the transfer avoided by the trustee creates adequate equity in the realty to which the claimed exemptions may attach, the exemptions will be allowed in the amount claimed pursuant to the provisions of section 522(c) and (g) of the Code.

Section 522(c)(2) leaves a secured lien enforceable in rem after discharge; the discharge eliminates only an in personam action against the debtor.

First Colonial Bank for Savings v. Bergeron · filed 1993-12-24§ 522(c)(2)

The discharge of the mortgagors’ personal debt only extinguished the creditor’s right to proceed in personam against the debtors and did not extinguish the right to proceed in rem as to the mortgage for which the creditor had a secured lien.

Section 522(c) preserves enforcement of valid liens after discharge, including against exempt property.

Schreiber v. Kellogg · filed 1996-04-11(c)

In addition, the legislative history of 11 U.S.C. § 522(c) specifically states that “the bankruptcy discharge does not prevent enforcement of valid liens ... on nonexempt property as well as on exempt property.”

Section 522(c)(2) leaves exempt property liable for a prepetition lien that has not been avoided under § 522(f), (g), or (h), so a creditor's mortgage can survive the debtor's bankruptcy.

In Re United Companies Financial Corp. · filed 2000-08-15(c)(2)

As provided in the Code, a creditor’s right to foreclose on a mortgage survives, or passes through, the bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2).

Section 522(c)(2) preserves an otherwise unavoidable lien against exempt property.

In Re Steele · filed 2009-04-07(c)(2)

The avoidance of the lien by the Trustee does not extinguish the mortgage; instead, it merely transfers the mortgage rights to the bankruptcy estate. In other words, the real property remains subject to the lien pursuant to § 522(c)(2), despite the claim of exemption regarding the property.

Section 522(c)(2) preserves a lien securing a debt against exempt property when the lien has not been avoided or voided under the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Gerardin · filed 2011-03-28(c)(2)

The claims are secured because the creditors’ mortgage liens survived the Debtors’ chapter 7 discharges. 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2).

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid certain liens that impair exemptions, and the avoidance is not undone by dismissal or conversion.

In Re Victorio · filed 2011-07-08(f)

Unlike liens avoided under § 506(d), liens avoided under § 522(f) are not reinstated on dismissal, nor set aside on conversion.

Section 522(c)(2)(A) preserves exempt property’s liability for a debt secured by a lien that has not been avoided.

Masoud Lahijani · filed 2022-12-22(c)(2)(A)

Along with the foregoing, the Judgment Lien survived Lahijani's discharge as a matter of law. See 11 U.S.C. §522(c)(2)(A); § 523(a). The Consent Order specifically excepted $11,000 of the Judgment from discharge.

Section 522(c)(2) preserves a lien that was not avoided in bankruptcy despite the debtor’s discharge.

Clark v. Bank of Bentonville · filed 1992-02-03(c)(2)

11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2) (1979 &Supp. 1991), provides that liens which are not avoided in the bankruptcy proceeding will be preserved notwithstanding the discharge of the debtor.

Section 522(c)(2) preserves a creditor’s right to foreclose on a mortgage or lien after bankruptcy.

Glass v. Prcin · filed 1999-09-08(c)(2)

Long, as codified in § 522(c)(2), provides that a creditor’s right to foreclose upon a mortgage or hen survives bankruptcy.

A nonpurchase-money, nonpossessory lien on a stereo may be avoided under section 522(f)(2) to the extent it impairs the debtor’s state-law exemption.

AVCO Finanical Services v. Tevis (In re Tevis) · filed 1981-05-19§ 522(f)(2)

Because we believe the subject property could be exempt under either the category of household goods or of tools of the trade, and because both of these categories are included under 11 United States Code Section 522(f)(2), we find that the nonpurchase-money, nonpossessory security interest in the stereo held by AVCO Financial Services may be avoided to the extent that interest impairs the exemption the debtors would otherwise enjoy under O.R.C. § 2329.66(A).

A debtor may avoid a nonpurchase-money, nonpossessory lien on exempt household goods under section 522(f) when the affected items have only nominal financial value, subject to itemized valuation.

Matter of McCabe · filed 1981-05-21§§ 522(b), 522(f)

we find that the above debtors may avoid Thorp Credit, Inc. of Ohio’s non-possessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in the items of exempt property to the extent it impairs exemptions applicable to items of nominal financial value only.

A claimed exemption becomes exempt when no party in interest objects to it.

In Re Brooks · filed 1981-05-22§ 522(7)

there being no party in interest objecting to this claim of exemption, the property claimed as exempt is, in fact, exempt. 11 U.S.C. § 522(7).

A lien cannot be avoided under section 522(f) when Pennsylvania entireties property remains immune from process and the lien does not impair that immunity.

Williamson v. Denson (In Re Williamson) · filed 1981-05-26§§ 522(b)(2), 522(f)

Unless a lien impairs an exemption during the administration of the case, it cannot be avoided.

For lien-avoidance purposes, household goods are personal property typically found in or around the home and used to support and facilitate day-to-day living within the home, including maintenance and upkeep of the house itself.

In re Elst · filed 1997-05-09(f)(1)(B)(i)

Thus, household goods under § 522(f) are those items of personal property that are typically found in or around the home and used by the debtor or the debtor’s dependents to support and facilitate day-to-day living within the home, including maintenance and upkeep of the house itself.

Section 522(f)(1)(B)(i) permits avoidance of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on a television used primarily for the debtor’s personal, family, or household purposes when the television is a household good.

In re Doss · filed 2003-10-01(f)(1)(B)(i)

The Court finds therefore that the Debtor’s big-screen television is an item of personal property typically found in or around the home, and used by this Debtor to support and facilitate day-to-day living within her home; thus, the television is a household good for purposes of hen avoidance under § 522(f)(l)(B)(i).

Section 522(f)(4)(B)(v) excludes a lawn tractor from the definition of household goods; a riding mower designed only to cut grass and unable to haul significant weight or operate additional equipment is not a lawn tractor.

In re Goodman · filed 2017-01-12(f)(4)(B)(v)

Therefore, the John Deere is not a lawn tractor within the meaning of § 522(f)(4)(B)(v).

A state welfare lien is subject to section 522(f), and the Commonwealth failed to show that lien avoidance materially disrupts its welfare program.

Holt v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare (In Re Holt) · filed 1981-05-27§ 522(f)

We hold that the Commonwealth has not met the burden of demonstrating that the action of § 522(f) so disrupts or frustrates the State in the performance of its welfare function that the § 522(f) power should be limited.

Section 522(f) avoids liens only to the extent they impair exemptions, leaving a senior lien enforceable to the value supported by equity and avoiding later liens that interfere with the exemption.

Shuttleworth v. Equibank, N. A. (In Re Shuttleworth) · filed 1981-05-28§ 522(f)

When the mortgage of $65,000.00 is considered along with the debtors’ exemptions of $15,800.00, this property would support a lien of $1,200.00. Thus the lien next in priority is allowed in the amount of $1,200.00, the remainder to become unsecured. All other liens are avoided as they impair the debtors’ exemptions.

Section 522(f)(2) permits a debtor to avoid a lien on personal property only when the property is exempt under applicable state law.

In Re Luckinbill · filed 1994-02-07(f)(2)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2), a debtor may avoid liens on certain personal property that is exempt under state law.

Section 522(f) lets a chapter 13 trustee avoid qualifying liens under § 522(f)(1) and (2) on property eligible for a § 522(b) exemption, even when state law makes the property exempt subject to that lien.

In the Matter of James A. Maddox, Debtors. Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc. v. James A. Maddox, Jr., and Harold J. Barkle · filed 1994-03-16(f), (f)(1), (f)(2), and (b)

In view of the foregoing, we hold today that a chapter 13 trustee has standing to avoid liens under § 522(f). ... Consequently, we hold today that, although states remain free to define the property eligible for exemptions under § 522(b), the particular liens that may be avoided on that property are determined by reference to federal law; specifically, § 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Ohio, a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest is avoidable under § 522(f)(2) only when the exempt property is subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order.

In re Morgan · filed 1995-03-13(f)(2)

There is no evidence in the present case that the debtors’ household goods were subject to the types of involuntary disposition enumerated in Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption the debtor would have been entitled to claim under state law if the lien did not exist, even when state law gives the lien priority over the homestead exemption; avoidance is limited to the impaired amount.

Hastings v. Holmes (In Re Hastings) · filed 1995-08-17(f)(1)

However, when analyzing § 522(f) lien avoidance problems as a matter of federal law, bankruptcy courts are instructed to “disregard some element of reality” and consider, in the abstract, whether the debtor would be entitled to an exemption under state law if the lien did not exist.

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid a qualifying lien impairing an exemption available under § 522(b), while state law defines the property exempt and federal law controls lien avoidance.

In Re Patterson · filed 1998-01-13§ 522(f)(1)(A)

Section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to avoid a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under § 522(b) if the lien is a judicial lien or a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in certain types of property. This statute allows the debtor to avoid a lien on property claimed as exempt under a state law exemption statute or under the federal exemption statute. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). Thus, a state may determine what property is exempt under state law, but federal law controls the availability of lien avoidance under § 522(f).

Section 522(f) requires the federal arithmetic formula in § 522(f)(2)(A) to determine whether a judicial lien impairs an exemption, so state law no longer controls impairment and an impairing lien may be avoided under § 522(f)(1).

Holland v. Star Bank, N.A. (In re Holland) · filed 1998-07-31(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

Congress’ enactment of the 1994 Bankruptcy Code amendments, however, has created a federal definition of impairment, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A), and, in light of this explicit language, we no longer look to state law to define impairment.

Section 522(f) permits lien avoidance only when the lien impairs an exemption available under § 522(b), making the applicable state-law exemption a prerequisite where federal exemptions do not apply.

Matter of Myers · filed 1985-12-12(f)

In short, a valid exemption under state law is a prerequisite to receiving relief through lien avoidance in states where the uniform federal exemptions do not apply.

Section 522(f) makes lien avoidance available under federal law when the property would qualify for a state-law exemption absent the lien, even if the state opts out of the federal exemptions.

Aetna Finance Co. v. Leonard (In re Leonard) · filed 1989-01-24(f)

We disagree, and hold that a state may elect to control what property is exempt under state law but federal law determines the availability of the lien avoidance provision.

Section 522(f) is not limited to liens fixed within section 547(b)’s ninety-day preference period.

Lumpkins v. Apex Inc. (In Re Lumpkins) · filed 1981-06-10§§ 522(b), 522(f)

Neither § 522(f) nor its legislative history indicate that it is limited in a manner similar to § 547(b). Its intent is in no way related to § 547(b).

Air conditioners, a vacuum cleaner, a television, and a stereo qualified as exempt household property under Oklahoma law, allowing avoidance of the creditor’s nonpurchase-money lien.

Fisher v. Credithrift of America, Inc. (In Re Fisher) · filed 1981-06-11§ 522(f)(2)

In light of the foregoing stipulated facts and legal authorities, it is the opinion of this Court that the debtor’s two air conditioners, vacuum cleaner, television set and stereo are exempt under Oklahoma law. The debtor’s Application to avoid Credi-thrift’s lien is therefore granted and Credi-thrift’s Application for the return of these items is denied.

The exemptions available under section 522(b) are determined by the debtor’s domicile, not merely the state of residence.

Smith v. Wellberg (In Re Wellberg) · filed 1981-06-12§ 522(b)

In the plain language of the Code, the exemptions available to a debtor in his state of domicile are those which he may claim in his bankruptcy.

A lump-sum pension payment received shortly before filing is exempt under section 522(d)(10)(E) when it substitutes for future wages and is reasonably necessary for the debtor’s support.

In Re Donaghy · filed 1981-06-12§ 522(d)(10)(E)

the court finds that the lump sum pension fund in the amount of $21,992.87, which the debtors received three weeks before the filing of their joint petition, and which they listed in their schedules and claimed as exempt is in fact exempt under Code § 522(d)(10)(E).

A secured claim cannot be treated as unsecured in a Chapter 13 plan merely because the debtor invokes section 522(f); the debtor must file a lien-avoidance complaint and obtain a hearing.

In Re Hoffman · filed 1981-06-15§ 522(f)

a creditor’s secured interest cannot be avoided merely by treating its claim as unsecured in a Chapter 13 plan. Instead, proper procedural methods of filing a complaint and answer, and a hearing thereon, must be followed.

Section 522(f) permits each debtor to avoid a nonpurchase-money lien on qualifying household goods, limited here to one TV and one VCR each, with additional items for the custodial debtor.

In Re Szydlowski · filed 1995-06-23(f)

In the instant case, the Court finds that each Debtor can elect to avoid Beneficial’s lien as to one TV and one VCR.

Section 522(f)(2) permits avoidance of qualifying nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interests in household goods even before a judicial sale or involuntary execution.

In Re Cushman · filed 1995-06-19(f)(2)

Accordingly, the Court further finds that debtor’s Motion to Avoid Lien is not premature and is well taken. That motion is hereby granted.

Section 522(f)(2) permits avoidance of a nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods to the extent the lien impairs an exemption.

Matter of Hillard · filed 1996-07-24§ 522(f)(2)

After consideration of the evidence, the Court finds, and it is a ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the debt- or’s motion to avoid the lien of American be and hereby is GRANTED, and the non-purchase money security interest of American in the debtors’ household furnishings is hereby avoided to the extent that such lien impairs the debtors’ exemptions.

Firearms used as a debtor’s primary means of obtaining food can be household goods subject to lien avoidance under § 522(f)(1)(B)(i).

In Re Rhines · filed 1998-12-01§ 522(f)(1)(B)(i)

This Court holds that they may be when used as the primary means of providing debtors with meat for food.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a qualifying nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods, with what counts as household goods determined case by case.

Smith v. Norwest Financial (In Re Smith) · filed 1986-02-03(f)(2)(A)

Therefore, the Court declines to accept the definition of household goods promulgated by the FTC and will continue to make a case-by-case determination of what constitutes household goods for the purposes of § 522(f)(2)(A).

Section 522(f)(1)(B) permits avoidance of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on a firearm used to supply food for the household when the firearm is a household good, but not on other firearms or a tanning bed that do not qualify.

In Re Heath · filed 2004-12-10(f)(1)(B)

Based on the briefs submitted, the arguments of counsel, the testimony of Debtor, Patsy L. Heath, and the entire record in this case, this Court finds that the lien on the Debtors’ 30/30 shotgun may be avoided because it is a household good, but that the liens on the remaining firearms and the tanning bed may not be avoided because those items do not fall within the definition of a household good as contemplated under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B).

Section 522(f)(4) treats one television and reasonable substitutes for a VCR, such as a DVD player, as household goods for lien avoidance, and domestic lawn equipment qualifies as appliances within that category.

In Re Zieg · filed 2009-05-07(f)(1), (f)(4)(A)(iii)

Under this provision, the Debtor may plainly avoid the hen on one television, which would be the 27" JVC television she says she has. And, although the statute refers to a VCR, and not a DVD player, I recognize that technology has changed since BAPCPA was drafted, and agree with those commentators who have suggested that the reference to a VCR can reasonably be interpreted to include a DVD player. ... I find, however, that these items are “appliances” under § 522(f)(4)(A)(iii). ... As “machines for domestic use,” the mowers and weedeater are appliances, and thus “household goods” under § 522(f)(4)(A).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on household goods used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

In Re Vaughn · filed 1986-07-31(f)(2)(A)

11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A) allows a debt- or to avoid a non-possessory, non-purchase money lien on “household goods” when such goods are “held primarily for the personal, family, or household use of the debt- or or a dependent of the debtor.” ... The more appropriate definition of “household goods” is a less restrictive one: “household goods” includes any personal property normally used by debtors or their dependents in or about their residence. ... Here, all of the items would normally be used by debtors or dependents in or about their residence. Therefore, all of the items qualify as “household goods” and the Debtors are entitled to avoid Ideal’s lien on those items.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits lien avoidance for qualifying household goods and furnishings held primarily for personal, family, or household use, including recreational items that are not luxurious.

Matter of Reid · filed 1988-12-30(f)(2)(A)

The court finds that the term household goods and furnishings includes property which is commonly used by and found in the dwelling, or the area surrounding the dwelling, of a reasonable debtor and his or her dependents which is necessary to enable the debtor to have a fresh start and may include property characterized as having entertainment or recreational value, but not property properly characterized as luxurious.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods when it impairs an exemption.

Barrick v. Avco Consumer Discount Co. (In Re Barrick) · filed 1989-02-10(f)(2)(A)

I believe the more reasonable approach however is to the contrary. ... Adopting the more liberal view, I determine that the stereo and VCR are household goods and therefore Avco’s lien in these items will be avoided. ... I conclude that a gun is not a household good within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(3) or (f)(2)(A) and Avco’s lien will not be avoided in the gun.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes when the lien impairs an exemption.

In Re Victor D. McGreevy Darlene A. McGreevy Debtors. Darlene A. McGreevy v. Itt Financial Services · filed 1992-02-05(f)(2)(A)

We therefore hold that “household goods” under section 522(f)(2)(A) are those items of personal property that are typically found in or around the home and used by the debtor or his dependents to support and facilitate day-to-day living within the home, including maintenance and upkeep of the home itself.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a lien on a handgun used to protect the home because its function makes it a household good.

Matter of Raines · filed 1993-12-07(f)(2)(A)

Therefore, the Court finds that the Debtors’ handgun is a “household good” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A), allowing the Debtors to avoid First Family’s lien on this item of property.

Under § 522(f)(4), a riding mower limited to cutting grass can qualify as a household appliance, while one capable of hauling, excavating, or plowing is an excluded lawn tractor.

In re Evans · filed 2016-03-29(f)(4)

Riding lawn mowers that are capable of hauling, excavating, or plowing, are lawn tractors. Riding lawn mowers, such as zero turn mowers and other basic rear-engine mowers— which typically are not capable of hauling, plowing, and other various lawn tasks—are not lawn tractors. ... The Riding Mower is a machine for-domestic use and is made for the specific task of cutting grass. As such, it is an appliance for the purposes of § 522(f).

The law in effect when the petition is filed controls the exemption election, so a debtor may use section 522(d) before the state’s opt-out statute takes effect.

Anderson v. Burnham (In Re Burnham) · filed 1981-06-18§§ 522(b), 522(d)(5)

The Court concludes that because at the time Burnham filed his bankruptcy petition the Georgia Legislature had not enacted Ga. Code Ann. § 51-1601, Burnham may exempt property under Section 522(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(f) is unavailable for liens created before the Code’s October 1, 1979 effective date.

In Re Johnson · filed 1981-06-18§ 522(f)(2)

The court, therefore, determines that only liens created subsequent to October 1, 1979 may be avoided by the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

A seller’s security interest in furniture is avoidable under section 522(f) when the transaction did not create a purchase-money security interest.

Sims Furniture Co. v. Trotter (In Re Trotter) · filed 1981-06-18§ 522(f)

This court concludes that plaintiff does not have a purchase money security interest in the sofa and love seat which plaintiff sold to defendant on or about December 10, 1979, and that plaintiff’s security interest in these items may be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522 permits a debtor to choose federal exemptions under § 522(d) unless the debtor’s state has opted out and limits the debtor to state exemptions.

In Re Fromal · filed 1993-02-19(b)(1), (d)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522, a debtor is permitted to exempt certain property from the bankruptcy estate by choosing between exemptions established in § 522(d) or in other federal laws, or those defined by the law of the state in which the debtor resides, unless that state limits debtors only to state-created exemptions.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid only the portion of a judicial lien that impairs an exemption; the remainder of the lien survives.

Dominion Bank, N.A. v. Osborne · filed 1994-03-09(f)(1)

“To the extent” is language which clearly limits the specific avoidance power granted by § 522(f). It limits the avoidance power to that part of the lien which “impairs” the exemption.

A debtor may avoid a judicial lien only to the amount that it impairs the debtor’s exemption, and § 522(f) does not apply when state law prevents the lien from attaching to exempt property.

In Re Odell Lynard Sanders, Debtor. David Dorsey Distributing, Incorporated v. Sanders · filed 1994-11-01§ 522(f)(1)

We hold that where a lien exceeds the amount of an exemption, the debt- or may avoid only the amount of the exemption. Additionally, when state law does not allow a lien to attach to exempt property, § 522(f) is superfluous and without application.

A divorce-created equitable lien arising at the same time as the debtor’s newly awarded property interest is not avoidable under § 522(f).

In Re Norton · filed 1995-04-04(f)(1)

Since both the Creditor’s equitable hen and Debt- or’s sole and separate property interest in the pohcies arose at the same time Debtor’s motion to avoid Creditor’s equitable hen pursuant to § 522(f) must be DENIED.

Section 522(f)(1)(B) treats whether jewelry is held for personal use or investment as a fact-specific question when deciding whether a qualifying lien may be avoided.

In Re Wilson · filed 1997-10-08§ 522(f)(1)(B)

Whether an article is held for personal use or for investment purposes is a fact-specific inquiry.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid an impairing judicial lien even when the debtor’s discharge has been denied.

In Re Allen · filed 1998-01-20(f)(1)

The Court holds that a debtor’s ability to utilize § 522(f) to avoid a judicial hen is not dependent upon the debtor receiving a discharge, and consequently, the denial of a debtor’s discharge does not bar the debtor from avoiding a hen pursuant to § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits lien avoidance even when the debtor’s discharge has been denied, provided the lien otherwise satisfies the statutory avoidance criteria.

In Re Clark · filed 1998-01-20§ 522(f)(1)

Consequently, lien avoidance remains an available remedy for this debtor, notwithstanding the Court’s denial of his discharge.

For purposes of § 522(f)(1)(B)(ii), a debtor must be legitimately engaged in farming and have a credible and sincere intent to continue farming to qualify farm equipment as tools of the trade for lien avoidance.

Johnson v. Border State Bank (In Re Johnson) · filed 1999-02-24§ 522(f)(1)(B)(ii)

However, regardless of the amount of income derived from farming and regardless of how many other trades the debtor is engaged in, in order to be considered a farmer for § 522(f)(l)(B)(ii) purposes, the debtor must be legitimately engaged in the enterprise of farming and express a credible and sincere intent to continue farming into the future.

Section 522(f)(1)(B)(i) permits a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on household goods used to support and facilitate day-to-day living in the home, without a separate necessity requirement, to the extent the lien impairs an available exemption.

In Re Gebhart · filed 2000-11-28(f)(1)(B)(i)

Because it follows the plain language of the statute, the Northern District’s functional nexus approach is the better interpretation of Section 522(f)(l)(B)(i), and an analysis pursuant to such approach will be employed here. Accordingly, Debtors’ big screen television fits the definition of “household good” to the extent that it is a type of good, a television, typically found in a home, and to the extent that it is an item of personal property that Debtors or their dependents use to support and facilitate life within their home on a day-to-day basis.

Under § 522(d)(5) and (l), an exemption in a particular asset is limited to the value claimed, and under § 522(f)(1)(A), with the calculation in § 522(f)(2)(A), a judicial lien may be avoided only to the extent it impairs that exemption.

Soost v. NAH, Inc. · filed 2001-06-01(d)(5), (l), (f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A)

However, when a debtor takes an exemption in a particular asset pursuant to section 522(d)(5), the “property claimed as exempt” within the meaning of section 522(l) is merely an interest in property not to exceed a specified value. ... Accordingly, Taylor and Green do not support the debtor’s argument. We hold that the debtor’s $1.00 exemption effectively exempted an interest in the subject real estate equal to $1.00 in value, nothing more. ... A debtor may avoid a judicial lien against his property “to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). ... Moreover, where a judicial lien need not be avoided in its entirety to alleviate the impairment of an exemption, the judicial lien may be avoided only in part and only to the extent of the impairment. ... Because we have ruled that the debtor exempted only a partial interest in the subject parcel equal to $1.00 in value, the foregoing argument advanced by the debtor must fail. Accordingly, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s lien avoidance order.

Section 522(f) allows lien avoidance only for property or an interest that would otherwise be exempt, so the debtor must prove entitlement to the exemption before avoiding an impairing lien.

In Re Uhrich · filed 2006-11-14(f)(1), (b)(2)(A)

They may avoid a lien under Section 522(f) only on property, or an interest in property, which would otherwise be exempt.

Section 522(f)(1) does not impose a time limit on a debtor’s motion to avoid a judicial lien.

Naylor v. Cusson · filed 2009-04-03(f)(1)

Neither sections 506(d) nor 522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (the substance of the lien avoidance motion) impose time limitations.

Section 522(f)(1)(B)(ii) permits a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in a tool of the trade when the lien impairs an exemption available under subsection (b), with federal law determining whether the property qualifies as a tool of the trade.

Cleaver v. Warford · filed 2009-06-11(f)(1)(B)(ii)

The issue on appeal is whether the debtors, who have exempted a motor vehicle under Iowa’s exemption statute, are entitled to prove that the vehicle is a tool of the trade under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B)(ii) in order to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in that vehicle. We hold that they are.

Section 522(f)(1)(B) permits avoidance of certain nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money liens on specified property, but motor vehicles are not among the federal lien-avoidance categories.

In Re Garcia · filed 2010-06-08(f)(1)(B)

But even more persuasive to the Court is the rather narrow definition found in the federal statute at 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B). Although “tools of the trade” are specifically described at subsection (ii), “motor vehicles” conspicuously are not found anywhere within the lien avoidance subsections. This is noteworthy in that “motor vehicles” are specifically called out at other places in the statute, for example at § 522(d)(2). This implies to the Court that motor vehicles were specifically not within the contemplation of Congress when considering non-possessory, non-purchase money lien avoidance.

For judicial-lien avoidance, § 522 uses the exemption amount available under applicable state law on the bankruptcy petition date and calculates impairment as if the property had no liens; conflicting state restrictions on that application are preempted.

In re Davis · filed 2015-10-01(b), (f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code mandates that the applicable exemption amount is the amount of the exemption the debtor could claim in the subject property in the absence of liens, pursuant to the applicable law in effect on the date of filing of a bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), (f). In the instant case, it is undisputed that § 522 prescribes the use of the exemption amount set forth in the 2013 Amendment. Therefore, any state law, constitutional or otherwise, that limits application of the 2013 Amendment to this matter, is preempted by the Bankruptcy Code, and is unenforceable.

Section 522(f)(1) requires a debtor seeking lien avoidance to prove the property's value and the validity and amount of other liens relevant to the exemption-impairment calculation.

In re Hewitt · filed 2017-11-08(f)(1)

The burden is on the Debtor to prove three crucial facts in order to obtain § 522(f) relief: the value of the Property, the validity of Marilyn Tobin’s alleged lien and, if valid, the value of Ms. Tobin’s lien. The Debtor failed to meet his prima facie burden on each of three issues.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien only when the lien attached to the debtor’s property before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Nathan L. McCoy · filed 2020-03-11(f)(1)(A)

The debtor does not allege that Discover Bank recorded the judgment postpetition in violation of the discharge injunction, and does not appear to seek contempt sanctions or other relief on that basis. Instead, the debtor seeks avoidance of a lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), but as explained in Hamilton, avoidance under § 522(f)(1)(A) is unavailable when no lien attached to the property prepetition, and, here, the debtor has not identified a lien that attached prepetition.

Section 522(d)(1) limits an exemption to the debtor's equity in the property, while § 522(f)(2)(A) measures lien impairment using the exemption available under § 522(b), and § 522(f) permits avoidance of post-petition liens.

Brian D. Gross and Marie Gross · filed 2022-03-07(d)(1), (f)(2)(A), (f)

After reviewing the caselaw and considering the arguments submitted by the parties, the Court adopts the latter approach — the Debtors may not claim an exemption greater than their equity under section 522(d)(1). ... Section 522(f) does not limit a debtor to the exemption claimed, if any, pursuant to Section 522(d)(1) in Schedule C for purposes of the calculation under Section 522(f)(2); rather, the debtor is entitled to use an exemption in the amount corresponding to the amount to which the debtor would have been entitled under Section 522(b) for purposes of the calculation. ... Therefore, the Court rejects the Creditor’s argument, and finds the Debtors may avoid post- petition liens under section 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption notwithstanding a prepetition waiver of that exemption.

Fawn Leslie Batista · filed 2026-03-24(f)(1)

By its terms, § 522(f) makes clear a prepetition waiver of an exemption does not preclude avoidance of a lien under that statute. The statute permits a debtor, “[n]otwithstanding a waiver of exemptions,” to avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor otherwise would have been entitled.

Section 522(f)(1)(B) does not allow a debtor to avoid a lien on a totaled car or its insurance proceeds because they fall outside the listed property categories.

In Re Watkins · filed 2003-08-22(f)(1)(B)

Nevertheless, the collateral at issue here, the totaled Malibu and the $11,437.35 in insurance proceeds, does not normally fit within any of the requisite categories in § 522(f)(1)(B).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien after selling the property if the debtor owned it before the lien attached and the lien impairs an exemption.

In Re Mailhot · filed 2003-12-04(f)(1)

At issue is whether the Debtor, who no longer owns the property has standing to seek the relief requested, and I conclude that she does.

A debtor’s stipulation to relief from the automatic stay does not, by itself, bar a later motion under Section 522(f) to avoid a lien on tools of the trade.

Trent Dales Ginter v. Alliant Bank · filed 2006-09-14(f)(1)(B)(ii)

The Debtor’s right to avoid the lien in the tools under Section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code did not involve the same cause of action as the earlier relief from stay proceeding under Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. Furthermore, the Debtor did not take inconsistent positions by consenting to the Creditor’s relief from stay motion and then filing the lien avoidance motion. Therefore, the court should not have denied the lien avoidance motion under the doctrine of res judicata or judicial estoppel.

Section 522(f)(1) does not require a debtor to still own liened property when moving to avoid a judicial lien.

Unifund C.C.R. Partners v. Sheckard (In Re Schekard) · filed 2008-09-19(f)(1)

Therefore, the plain language of § 522(f) (1) does not require the debtors retain an interest in the property when they file their Motion to Avoid the lien.

Section 522(f) permits a lienholder defending a lien avoidance motion to dispute whether the property would have been exempt on the petition date, even if the lienholder did not timely object to the exemption claim.

In Re Armenakis · filed 2009-05-22(f)(1)

Smithbuilt is entitled to make a showing that Debtor is unable to satisfy § 522(f)’s requirement that the property “would have been exempt” at the time of the petition date, notwithstanding its failure to timely object to her exemption claim.

Section 522(f)(1) does not allow a debtor to avoid a constructive trust because it is not a judicial lien and the debtor does not own the equitable interest in the trust property.

Smithfield Trust Co. v. Pitchford (In Re Pitchford) · filed 2009-08-27(f)(1)

Therefore, any constructive trust that Smithfield might obtain in the Orphans Court will not be avoidable under any provision of the Bankruptcy Code; such conclusion, by itself, constitutes a strong basis for permitting Smithfield post-petition to pursue the constructive trust that it seeks to have imposed on the Debtor’s Residence.

Section 522(f)(1)(B) does not let a debtor avoid a security interest in a cause of action or its cash proceeds.

Bob Sutton Realty & Loans, LLC v. Darnell · filed 2025-04-21(f)(1)(B)

A debtor may avoid certain security interests under Section 522(f)(1)(B). But that section limits relief to “nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money” security interests in household goods, tools of the trade, professionally prescribed health aids, and related types of tangible personal property. See id. § 522(f)(1)(B), (f)(4). It does not permit a debtor to avoid a security interest in a cause of action or the cash proceeds of a cause of action.

In community property, one spouse’s section 522(d)(1) exemption reaches only that spouse’s one-half interest when the other spouse claims no corresponding exemption.

In Re Brents-Pickell · filed 1981-06-24§§ 522(b), 522(d), 522(m)

her exemption claims will extend to her one-half interest in each item of community property claimed under § 522(d)(1). Since Mr. Brents-Pickell has not claimed this property exempt under California exemption statutes, his one-half interest remains in the estate.

A nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money household-goods lien of insubstantial economic value may be avoided under section 522(f)(2) without an unconstitutional taking.

Barnes v. Atlantic Credit Co. (In Re Barnes) · filed 1981-06-24§ 522(f)(2)

This court concludes that Beneficial’s property right was not of substantial value.

Section 522(f)(1)(B)(ii) permits avoidance of a nonpossessory, non-purchase-money lien on exempt tools of the trade when the lien impairs the debtor’s exemption.

In Re Carson · filed 1995-07-28(f)(1)(B)(ii)

With respect to the third issue identified above, that is, whether tools of the trade are proper subjects for the application of the motion to avoid lien under Bankruptcy Code Section 522(f), the Court notes that tools of the trade are identified as one category of personal property which may be made the subject of a lien avoidance motion, pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f)(1)(B)(ii).

Section 522(f)(2)(B) does not let a debtor avoid a consensual lien on a motor vehicle claimed exempt under a state vehicle exemption by recharacterizing it as a tool of the trade.

Alloway v. Oregon Bank (In Re Alloway) · filed 1983-08-30(f)(2)(B)

Section 522(f)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code makes no provision for avoidance of liens on motor vehicles, and therefore, the debtors are not entitled to avoid a consensual lien on the 1966 Dodge dump truck which they have exempted under the Oregon statutes as a vehicle with a higher allowable exemptable value.

Section 522(f)(2)(B) permits a debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in tools of the trade without first proving equity in the property; when there is no equity, the property's value does not reduce the exemption amount.

Rasmussen v. Green Hills Production Credit Ass'n (In Re Rasmussen) · filed 1985-10-02(f)(2)(B)

It is well established in this district that it is not necessary that a debtor have an equity in the property (in the sense of an excess in value over the balance due) as a prerequisite to lien avoidance. ... If there is no equity in the property which is the subject of lien avoidance, the decisions which adopt the above rule hold that the lien on that property may be avoided, but its value does not count against the total value of property as to which a lien may be avoided. ... The context of that opinion and of its progeny makes it clear that the value limitations on exemptions, as applicable in lien avoidance, do not figure in calculations to determine the maximum allowable. ... It appears, therefore, that without regard to value, the within motions for lien avoidance must be granted under the law of this district.

Section 522(f) cannot be constitutionally applied retroactively to avoid a lien that existed before the exemption statute was created.

In Re Sticha · filed 1986-04-21(f)

Application of an exemption through 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) to avoid a lien that existed before the exemption statute was created, would constitute a retroactive unconstitutional application of § 522(f). Parties to a secured transaction are entitled to rely upon the law in existence at the time of the transaction regarding interests in property that are determined by it. Although this bankruptcy case was filed after the effective date of the Minnesota Statute increasing the exemption and the Debtors are entitled to exempt from the estate farm equipment totalling $20,000.00, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) cannot be constitutionally applied to allow them to avoid the Bank’s lien to that extent. Otherwise, application of § 522(f) would result in the use of a later-enacted statute to deprive the Bank of an earlier, lawfully created and sustained interest in property without compensation.

Section 522(f)(2)(B) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on tools of the trade to the extent it impairs an exemption.

In Re Neal · filed 1992-03-08(f)(2)(B)

The plain language of § 522(f)(2)(B) contains no reference to a dollar limitation on the avoidability of liens. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(B). Indeed, the two subsections are identical with the exception of the $750 limitation in subsection (d)(6), suggesting that the failure to set a limit on the lien avoidance provision was deliberate. ... So long as the tools otherwise qualify for exemption under subsection (b), which includes both state and federal exemptions, they are eligible for lien avoidance as well. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f) is not clearly unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment and may be used to avoid a judgment lien to the extent it impairs an exemption.

Jenkins v. Northwest Georgia Bank (In Re Jenkins) · filed 1981-06-25§ 522(f)

The provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) are not clearly repugnant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A debtor using state exemptions cannot use section 522(f) to enlarge Pennsylvania’s immunity-from-process protection for entireties property.

Martine v. Cipa (In Re Cipa) · filed 1981-06-26§§ 522(b)(2)(B), 522(f)

The debtor may not use Section 522(f) of the Code to enlarge the state exemption.

Section 522(c) does not bar setoff against exempt homestead proceeds when equitable considerations justify allowing creditors to recover their prepetition claims.

Winter v. Glaze (In Re Glaze) · filed 1994-06-28(c)

Under the circumstances set forth in this case, this Court shall permit setoff against the homestead proceeds claimed as exempt by the Débtors.

Section 522(c)(2)(B) protects properly filed tax liens against exempt property from avoidance under § 506(d).

Walkup v. First Interstate (In Re Walkup) · filed 1995-05-02(c)(2)(B)

Accordingly, this court concludes that section 522(c)(2)(B) prohibits the Debtors in this case from seeking to void the IRS liens against their homesteaded exempt property.

The court held that the debtor’s Lake County homestead was exempt from the bankruptcy estate under § 522(b).

In Re Lee · filed 1998-06-02(b)

The Debtor’s Lake County property is homestead property exempted from his bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b).

The § 522(c)(1) tax exception allows the IRS to set off an exempt tax refund against qualifying prepetition income taxes.

In re Munson · filed 1999-08-20§ 522(c)(1)

the exempt status of her claim for the anticipated tax refund does not shield it from IRS’ right of setoff.

Section 522(c) protects exempt property from prepetition debts except for the statute’s listed exceptions, but it does not displace the IRS’s separate right of setoff under § 553.

United States v. Luongo · filed 2000-04-03§ 522(c)

The IRS’s right of setoff is unaffected by Luongo’s claims that (1) the tax refund is exempt property and (2) that the tax liability was discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 522(c) does not prevent a creditor from exercising a preserved prepetition setoff right against property claimed as exempt.

Ramirez v. Minnesota Department of Revenue (In Re Ramirez) · filed 2001-09-12(c)

Therefore, the MDR is entitled to offset the 1999 refund against the Debtor’s 1994 tax liability and Section 522 does not affect the creditor’s setoff rights.

Section 522(c) protects exempt property from liability for most debts that arose before the bankruptcy case, but property that never becomes part of the estate cannot be claimed as exempt.

Harrison v. United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (In Re Harrison) · filed 2008-03-13(c)

Debtors are correct that 11 U.S.C. § 522(c), provides that exempt property is not liable for any debt of the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case, except in certain circumstances not present here. ... Since the debt exceeded the tax refund, the Debtors were not entitled to a refund and the refund never became property of the estate. Therefore, it could not be classified as exempt property under 11 U.S.C. § 522 and Debtors’ claimed exemption on their Petition was of no legal consequence.

Section 522(c) does not prevent a creditor with a valid prepetition setoff right under § 553 from setting off property claimed as exempt.

Miller v. United States · filed 2010-01-12(c)

Although §§ 522 and 553 are in apparent conflict and should be interpreted to give effect to the whole act, ... allowing a setoff under § 553 does not nullify § 522(c). ... Therefore, I will affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision that the government could exercise its setoff right in Miller’s 2007 tax overpayment even though she had claimed it as exempt.