11 U.S.C. § 522

Section 522(f)(2)(A)'s impairment formula treats a debtor's interest in Massachusetts tenancy-by-the-entirety property as 100 percent of the property's value, with the valuation fixed at the bankruptcy snapshot.

Snyder v. Rockland Trust Co. (In Re Snyder) · filed 2000-06-02(f)(2)(A)

In 1994, Congress amended section 522(f) to give a clear meaning to the term “impair an exemption” by creating a mathematical formula to make that determination. ... For the purposes of this subsection, a lien shall be considered to impair an exemption to the extent that the sum of— ... exceeds the value that the debtor’s interest in the property would have in the absence of any liens. ... Thus, the Panel agrees with the bankruptcy court that the Debtor’s interest in the tenancy by the entirety property for purposes of the section 522(f) formula should be valued at 100 percent. However, the Panel believes that the valuation should then be fixed and not subject to a possible subsequent hearing when an event occurs which would terminate the tenancy by the entirety.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) does not include a nondebtor spouse’s homestead election in calculating whether the debtor’s lien impairs a federal exemption.

Snyder v. Rockland Trust Co. · filed 2001-03-08(f)(2)(A)

In any event, we agree with the BAP's conclusion that "[o]n the facts of this case, the spouse's homestead election is not part of the equation under section 522(f)." Snyder, 249 B.R. at 47.

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of a judgment lien to the extent it impairs the debtor’s exemption, using the statutory formula to measure impairment.

Darden v. Blankenship (In Re Blankenship) · filed 2001-02-20(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

Section 522 additionally provides that a lien can be avoided to the extent that it impairs the debtor’s exemptions.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) supplies the formula for determining how much a judicial lien impairs an exemption.

In Re Patenaude · filed 2001-03-19(f)(2)(A)

Section 522(f)(2)(A) sets forth the formula used to calculate the extent to which a judicial lien impairs an exemption.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance only when a judicial lien impairs the exemption, applying the statutory formula in section 522(f)(2)(A).

In Re Tardugno · filed 2001-05-09(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

The Doyle lien, therefore, does not impair the Debtors’ exemption because the sum of all liens and the allowed exemption does not exceed the value of the Debtors’ interest in the Property absent any encumbrances.

When applying the impairment formula, lien priority matters, so junior nonavoidable liens are excluded from the calculation.

In re Brinley · filed 2002-05-24(f)(2)(A)

The Court concludes that the priority of liens is material to considering a lien avoidance motion under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), and therefore, we must exclude from the impairment calculation the Bank One mortgage which is junior in priority to the lien of LPP.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits a debtor to avoid the portion of a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, calculated using the property's value as of the petition date.

In Re Steck · filed 2003-09-09(f)(2)(A)

Section 522(f) sets forth the formula to determine the extent to which a hen impairs an exemption: ... Accordingly, for purposes of making the calculation under § 522(f)(2)(A) the Court will use the value of $260,000. ... The above calculation demonstrates that the Debtor’s exemption is impaired by the WAMCO lien to the extent of $214,099.69. Therefore, the lien does not impair the exemption to the extent that the amount of the lien ($225,221.51) exceeds the extent of the impairment ($214,099.69), i.e., $11,121.82. ... Accordingly, pursuant to § 522(f), the Court finds that the Debtor can partially avoid WAMCO’s lien. The remaining portion of WAMCO’s lien, the $11,121.82, cannot be avoided and must be appropriately addressed within the Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan.

Section 522(f)(2) does not permit avoidance of a judgment lien that does not impair the debtor’s exemption after lien priority is determined.

In Re Sutton · filed 2003-09-19(f)(1)(A)

Mr. LaRocea’s judgment hen retains its equity cushion, and thus cannot be considered “impaired” within the meaning of § 522(f)(2).

Section 522(f) measures the extent to which a judicial lien impairs an exemption using the property's fair market value as of the petition date, with the later sale price controlling absent proof of post-filing appreciation.

Fitzgerald v. Davis · filed 1984-03-07(f)

Section 522(a)(2) provides the only statutory guidance. It defines “value” in the context of exemptions as “fair market value as of the date of the filing of the petition.” ... Nevertheless, in the absence of proof, that the property has changed in value after the date of filing, a bankruptcy court should not disregard the price obtained from a sale of the property during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings. Under these circumstances, a sale price greatly in excess of an estimate is the more reliable evidence of the “value” defined in § 522(a)(2). ... On remand, the bankruptcy court should reconsider its decision about the application of § 522(f). It should use the sale price of the property as the fair market value as of the time the petition was filed unless the bankrupts prove that the property increased in value during the time that elapsed between filing and sale.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) requires the impairment calculation to include all other liens on the property, without distinguishing senior from junior liens.

In Re Smith · filed 2004-09-30(f)(2)(A)

The Court begins with the language of the statute, which plainly and unambiguously requires that the extent of impairment be calculated by adding in “all other liens on the property.”

Section 522(f)(2)(A) limits lien avoidance to the amount by which the lien impairs the exemption, leaving the creditor with any unimpairing balance.

Brinley v. LPP Mortgage Ltd · filed 2005-03-22(f)(2)(A)

Because the amount of the impairment in this case is $98,763.44, LPP’s lien may be avoided only by that amount, thus allowing Brinley to take advantage of the statutory exemption afforded him.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) limits avoidance to the amount by which the judicial lien impairs the exemption, leaving the balance of the lien in place.

In Re: Stuart C. Brinley, Debtor. Stuart C. Brinley, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Lpp Mortgage, Ltd., Appellant/cross-App · filed 2005-03-22(f)(2)(A)

Consequently, LPP retains a lien on the debtor’s property in the amount of $13,654.91 ($112,418.35-98,-763.44 = $13,654.91).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) allows avoidance of a judicial lien even when the lien exceeds the dollar amount of the exemption, using the statutory impairment formula.

In Re Hemric · filed 2005-09-28(f)(2)(A)

Under Congress’s formula, a judicial lien may be avoided notwithstanding the fact that the amount of the lien exceeds the dollar amount of the applicable exemption.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and § 522(f)(2)(A) measures impairment by comparing the liens and exemption with the property’s value; state-law lien priority is irrelevant to that calculation.

In Re Oglesby · filed 2005-11-22(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

Although bankruptcy law typically looks to state law regarding property rights and lien priorities, the relative priority of the liens under Ohio law is not relevant for purposes of applying § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(2) permits avoidance of a judicial lien to the extent the statutory calculation shows impairment; here the lien was avoidable by $33,328.42 and remained valid as to the balance.

In Re Fox · filed 2006-10-26(f)(2)(A)

For the reasons discussed above, the NWP Lien shall be avoided to the extent of $33,328.42 and is unaffected to the extent of $118,138.77.

Section 522 permits a timely claimed and otherwise valid homestead exemption, and § 522(f) requires full avoidance of a judicial lien that completely impairs it.

In Re Tofani · filed 2007-03-27(i), (f)

The Debtor’s claim of a homestead exemption under Massachusetts law pursuant to Section 522 was timely filed and untimely objected to. Even if timely objected to, the exemption claim is allowed because the Debtor’s homestead estate was properly acquired prepetition in accordance with Massachusetts law and properly claimed in his bankruptcy case in accordance with the Code. The impairment of that exemption has been correctly calculated in accordance with Section 522(f) and requires full avoidance of the Credit Union’s judicial lien.

Section 522(f) permits partial avoidance of a judicial lien to the extent it impairs the debtor's homestead exemption.

Susan Laura Levin · filed 2020-04-24(f)

Astilean’s judicial lien may, therefore, be avoided in part. It is avoided to the extent it impairs the debtor’s homestead exemption, i.e. $54,685.30, and shall remain a judicial lien on the Property in the amount of $42,424.00.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, and § 522(f)(2)(A) measures the impairment; a qualifying lien may be avoided in its entirety.

Tirso Castillo Maria v. Kersting · filed 2020-11-19(f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A)

After considering the unique facts of this case and the intricacies of applicable Puerto Rico law, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that the Appellant’s judicial lien impaired an exemption to which the Debtor would have been entitled and, therefore, that the Debtor could avoid the Appellant’s judicial lien in its entirety.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) calculates impairment by adding the judicial lien, other liens, and the exemption, then subtracting the debtor's interest in the property.

David G. Waltrip, LLC v. Ruby Sawyers · filed 2021-07-02(f)(2)(A)

Section 522(f)(2)(A) provides a specific formula for calculating the extent to which a lien impairs a debtor’s homestead exemption.

Section 522(f)(2)(A), read with § 522(a)(2), requires the debtor's interest in property to be valued at its fair market value as of the petition date when calculating impairment.

Nataly Minkina · filed 2021-07-28(f)(2)(A)

Subsection 522(f)(2)(A) requires a determination of “the value that the debtor’s interest in the property would have in the absence of any liens.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A). And subsection 522(a)(2) instructs that “value” in this section means “fair market value as of the date of the filing of the petition.”

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and § 522(f)(2)(A) measures that impairment under the statutory formula.

Tigreros v. Origen Capital Investments III, LLC · filed 2023-04-30(f), (f)(2)(A)

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid the fixing of a judicial lien on his property ... Under §522(d)(1), a debtor’s interest in real property that is used as his residence is subject to exemption not to exceed $25,150.00.

Under the version of § 522(f)(1) applicable here, a judicial lien does not impair a California automatic homestead exemption if the debtor will receive the full exemption in a forced sale, even when there is little or no equity.

Amiri v. Collection Bureau of San Jose (In Re Amiri) · filed 1995-06-19(f)(1)

Applying the reasoning of Chabot to this case, we hold that regardless of whether there is little or no equity, the judicial lien did not impair the debtors’ homestead exemption under California law.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows avoidance of a judicial lien only if the lien has fixed on the debtor’s property interest.

In Re Garstecki · filed 2006-08-16(f)(1)(A)

In this case, because the Debtor’s real property located in Osage County has been determined to be his homestead, the lien of FCS was not fixed to that property, and there is no basis for, or need for, lien avoidance.

A debtor may not treat tenancy-by-the-entireties property as divided in half for section 522(f) administration unless the tenancy has been legally partitioned.

Hackett v. Commercial Banking Corp. (In Re Hackett) · filed 1981-08-25§ 522(f)

The tenancy must be legally partitioned before the debtor can be considered a one-half owner.

Unused exemption value under section 522(d)(5) may be applied to any property of the bankruptcy estate, including a Consumer Credit Protection Act cause of action.

In Re LaFlamme · filed 1981-08-28§ 522(d)(5)

We, therefore, hold that to the extent the Appellant-Debtors have any unused exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) it may be claimed against the value of the cause of action under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

A debtor is not barred from filing a section 522(f) lien-avoidance complaint after discharge when the bankruptcy case is reopened for that relief.

Gortmaker v. AVCO Financial Services (In Re Gortmaker) · filed 1981-08-28§ 522(f)

A debtor is not precluded from bringing a complaint to avoid a lien subsequent to discharge.

Section 522(f) applies to a Chapter 13 debtor’s interest in property held as tenants by the entireties when that interest is property of the bankruptcy estate.

Joseph C. Morrone, Jr. · filed 2020-08-27(f)

The Debtor’s interest in the Residence as entireties property is property of the estate and, for that reason, clearly subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and the jurisdiction of this court.

A lien not avoided under section 522 survives discharge and remains enforceable in rem after the automatic stay terminates.

Polk County Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Des Moines v. Weathers (In Re Weathers) · filed 1981-12-08§ 522(c)

This Court finds that unavoided liens are enforceable after the automatic stay is terminated by discharge; thus, creditors with unavoided or unvoided liens retain their in rem rights.

A refinancing agreement preserves purchase-money status for goods covered by the final contract but leaves the balance of the lien avoidable under section 522(f).

Ashworth v. McMahan’s Furniture (In Re Ashworth) · filed 1981-12-08§ 522(f)

I conclude that there is a purchase money security interest in the goods set forth in the last contract (Exhibit 5). The lien, as to the balance of the goods, may be avoided under § 522(f).

Under § 522(c), a federal tax lien survives the bankruptcy discharge even if the Chapter 13 plan did not provide for payment of the secured claim.

In re Wolff · filed 1994-11-30(c)

The federal tax liens would survive the bankruptcy discharge, whether or not payment was provided in the plan for the secured claim.

Section 522(c) preserves valid liens through a bankruptcy discharge unless the Bankruptcy Code provides a basis to avoid them.

Jarrett v. Ohio, Dept. of Taxation (In Re Jarrett) · filed 2002-07-24(c)

However, § 524 is specifically limited in its scope to only those actions by creditors to collect a debt as a “personal liability of the debtor.” Thus, § 524 (or for that matter any other Bankruptcy Code section) does not affect the fundamental principle of bankruptcy law that unless otherwise avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code, valid liens — including tax liens — survive a bankruptcy discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 522(c).

A refinancing that merely renews the original obligation without a novation preserves the purchase-money character of the lien, making it non-avoidable under section 522(f)(2).

Holland v. Associates Finance (In Re Holland) · filed 1981-12-14§ 522(f)(2)

Defendant, under this view continues to hold a purchase money security interest it took in the first instance.

The court explains that § 522(b) permits a debtor to choose federal or applicable state exemptions, subject to a state opt-out.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,529 in Re Stanley W. Gerrald, Debtor. Stanley W. Gerrald v. William Randall Wright, Chapter 7 Truste · filed 1995-06-09(b)

Debtors may elect either the federal bankruptcy exemptions found under section 522(d) of the Bankruptcy Code or the applicable state law exemptions, unless the state opts out of the federal exemption scheme and allows the debtor only to use the state exemptions.

Section 522(b)(1) requires a debtor to choose between federal exemptions and state and federal nonbankruptcy exemptions on a single Schedule C.

Warfield v. Nance · filed 2025-10-14(b)(1)

We agree with Ladd that § 522(b)(1) and Schedule C prohibit raising state and federal homestead exemptions on a single schedule.

Section 522(b) permits a state to make its exemptions applicable in bankruptcy instead of the federal exemptions; Maryland has done so.

In Re Solomon · filed 1994-04-20(b)

The Bankruptcy Code will recognize a state’s exemptions to the exclusion of exemptions allowed under the Code, if the state so elects. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). Maryland has elected to make the Bankruptcy Code exemptions inapplicable.

A state-law restriction cannot bar the federal lien-avoidance power in section 522(f); a Pennsylvania welfare lien created by judgment is avoidable as a judicial lien.

In Re McKay · filed 1981-12-31§ 522(f)(1)

For all of the above reasons, we find that the debtors herein may avoid the lien of the DPW on their residence pursuant to § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(2) does not apply to a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien that attached before November 6, 1978.

In the Matter of Willis R. Gifford and Jacqueline M. Gifford · filed 1982-01-21§ 522(f)(2)

We hold that § 522(f)(2) does not apply to liens which attached prior to November 6, 1978.

Inherited real- and personal-property proceeds may be exempted under section 522 up to the statutory maximum after entering the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Means · filed 1982-01-22§ 522(d)(5)

However, the debtor may exempt these personal property proceeds up to the statutory maximum of 11 U.S.C. § 522.

A debtor may avoid a preferential judgment lien under section 522(h) when the trustee could avoid the transfer but has not done so.

Deel Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Levine · filed 1982-01-22§ 522(h)

Levine could certainly avoid Deel’s lien as a preference under § 547(b) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(h).

Section 522(f)(2) remains available despite Idaho’s opt-out legislation and state-law attempt to preserve otherwise avoidable security interests.

Strain v. Valley Bank (In Re Strain) · filed 1982-01-25§ 522(f)(2)

Upon consideration of the cases noted below and the arguments made therein, I conclude that the Idaho legislature’s attempt to deny debtors in federal bankruptcy proceedings the right to avoid liens pursuant to § 522(f) is of no effect in light of clear congressional power to make uniform laws concerning bankruptcy, U.S.

A nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on exempt household goods consummated after the Bankruptcy Code’s enactment is avoidable under section 522(f).

In Re Hopper · filed 1982-01-27§ 522(f)

More importantly, having determined that the creditor holds a nonpurchase money, nonpossessory lien in household goods claimed exempt by the debtors, which was consummated after the enactment date of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, the creditor’s lien is now and has been subject to avoidance pursuant to section 522(f).

A municipal lien arising automatically by statute is not a judicial lien and cannot be avoided under section 522(f)(1).

Taylor v. West End Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Taylor) · filed 1982-01-29§ 522(f)(1)

Accordingly, they are not avoidable under § 522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A refinancing transaction may leave a purchase-money lien intact for separately identified goods while making the household-furniture portion avoidable under section 522(f).

In Re Wilson · filed 1982-02-02§ 522(f)

However, that portion of the lien as it relates to household furniture is subject to avoidance under § 522(f) as it merely refers the final note and security agreement to other prior unfiled security agreements by date without any reference to the filed financing statement of October, 1977.

A Pennsylvania cognovit-note judgment lien is a judicial lien within section 522(f)(1), and applying that subsection to the lien is constitutional.

In Re Ashe · filed 1982-02-03§ 522(f)(1)

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

A debtor may use section 522(f) to avoid a judicial lien created by a writ of fieri facias and garnishment to the extent it impairs properly exempted wages.

Baum v. United Virginia Bank (In Re Baum) · filed 1981-11-23§ 522(f)

Baum had properly exempted his wages under Virginia law and, therefore, may avoid the lien applied to his exempted wages by the writ of fieri facias.

A Pennsylvania welfare-repayment lien created by a confessed judgment is a judicial lien subject to avoidance under section 522(f)(1), and federal bankruptcy law permits that avoidance despite state sovereignty concerns.

In Re Galbraith · filed 1981-11-24§ 522(f)(1)

We conclude that the DPW liens are judicial liens which impair an exemption of the debtors and thus fall within the scope of § 522(f)(1).

This court held that a Chapter 13 debtor may not use section 522(f) to avoid household-goods liens because Chapter 13 does not grant exemptions under section 522(b), although other Code provisions may cancel or limit the lien.

Sands v. Blazer Financial Services Inc. (In Re Sands) · filed 1981-11-24§ 522(f)

This Court is of the opinion that the Chapter 13 debtor may not use § 522(f) to avoid these secured creditors’ liens.

A debtor may seek to avoid a transfer under section 522(h) by motion in a contested matter rather than by adversary complaint.

Fidelity Financial Services v. Schweitzer · filed 1981-11-24§ 522(h)

The Court concludes that avoidance of a transfer of property is not a proceeding to recover money or property and, thus, Rule 701 is inapplicable.

Section 522(f) lets an Ohio debtor avoid judicial liens and nonpurchase-money security interests on specified household and personal goods to the extent those liens impair exemptions allowed under Ohio law, even though Ohio opted out of the federal exemptions.

In Re Hill · filed 1980-05-21(f)

Therefore, it is the conclusion of the court that when debtors in Ohio claim exemptions under Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2329.66 the debtors are entitled to avoid judicial liens and nonpurchase-money security interests on household and personal goods to the extent of the exemptions allowed under Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2329.66 in the absence of such liens.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on exempt property up to the amount of the exemption, even when the debtor has no equity in the property.

In Re Berrong · filed 1985-09-20(f)(1)

The Court therefore holds that a debtor may employ § 522(f)(1) to avoid a judicial lien on exempt property, in the proper amount which the debtor may claim as exempt regardless of the amount of equity the debtor has in the property.

Section 522(f) does not permit a debtor who elects Texas exemptions to avoid a consensual lien on property that is not exempt under Texas law.

Bessent v. United States (In Re Bessent) · filed 1987-06-02(f)

The farm equipment subject to the FmHA lien is not exempt from the bankruptcy estate nor may the debtors avoid the liens on it.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid liens on property to the extent the property is exempt under applicable law, including exempt deposit-account and IRA funds.

In Re Dalaimo · filed 1988-06-30(f)

The Dalaimos seek to avoid Seinsoth’s lien on their Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). ... This court finds .that the claimed IRA exemptions must be sustained under the “reasonably necessary” standard. ... All funds deposited in the accounts seized by the Marshal which represent social security or U.S. government pension benefits shall be returned to the Dalaimos, and Seinsoth’s liens avoided to the extent allowable under the exemption. ... Based on the Dalaimos schedules and statement of affairs, as well as the supplemental pleadings filed herein, this court holds that debtors have shown that the IRA funds are necessary to the maintenance of the debtor and his family.

Section 522(f)(1) does not permit avoidance of a judicial lien on an exempt homestead interest when state exemption law provides that the lien does not attach to that interest.

Ward v. Bank of Findley (In Re Ward) · filed 1993-08-30(f)(1)

The Court’s conclusion that lien avoidance under § 522(f)(1) is unavailable where state exemption law provides that judicial liens do not attach to the debtor’s exempt homestead interest is not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(f) does not let a debtor avoid a lien that attached to property before the debtor acquired an interest in that property.

In Re Kane · filed 1993-10-12(f)

Therefore, because the debtor did not have an interest in the property before the hen attached, the debtor cannot now use § 522(f) to avoid the hen.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing a homestead exemption even if the debtor no longer owns the property when the motion is filed, so long as the debtor held an interest before the lien attached and satisfies the other statutory requirements.

Julie C. Zamora · filed 2025-11-07(f)(1)

In sum, it is possible for a debtor to avoid a judicial lien under § 522(f) even if the debtor no longer owns the homestead property when the debtor files a motion to avoid lien.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption the debtor would have been entitled to claim absent the lien.

Snow v. Green (In re Snow) · filed 1990-04-03(f)(1)

In the words of the Leonard court, and changing only the word Colorado to Virginia, "since [Virginia] law allows the property to be exempted if no security interest exists, a security interest could be avoided under Sec. 522(f)." 866 F.2d at 337.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judgment lien that impairs a homestead exemption even when state law prevents the lien from attaching to the homestead.

Henderson v. Belknap (In Re Henderson) · filed 1993-04-01(f)(1)

However, the more well-reasoned analysis, and the one which this Court elects to follow, is advanced in the opinions of the courts arrayed against them on the other side of the division. These courts adhere to the view that the mere existence of a judgment lien, although not attaching to the exempt homestead, impairs the debtor’s constitutional homestead exemption and, consequently, is avoidable under § 622(f)(1).

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid a lien on exempt property to the extent it impairs an allowed exemption, while preserving any lien value beyond that exemption.

Sioux Falls Veterans Administration Employees Federal Credit Union v. Van Gorkom (In Re Van Gorkom) · filed 1980-06-20(f)

This Bankruptcy Court holds that, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f), a debt- or can avoid a lien on exempt property but only to the extent of the allowed exemption.

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid certain liens on property exempt under § 522(b), including state law exemptions when the state opts out of § 522(d).

Beneficial Finance Co. of Virginia v. Rodgers (In Re Rodgers) · filed 1980-09-11(f)

Subsection (f) of 11 U.S.C. § 522 grants this avoiding power with regard to any exemption allowed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b) including the state option.

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid certain liens on exempt property without a statutory time limit.

In Re Newton · filed 1981-12-07(f)

Congress in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) gave the debtors a right and they did not put a time limit upon the exercise of that right.

Section 522(f) permits lien avoidance only for specified categories of exempt personal property and liens.

In Re Wright · filed 1983-11-22(f)

Subsections 1 and 2 of § 522(f) define the scope of the debtor’s avoiding powers to encompass only judicial liens and nonposses-sory, nonpurchase-money security interests in personal items. These items are drawn selectively from a much broader list of the items which are exemptable under § 522(d). Wright does not attempt to fit the two guns or the automobile within the three categories detailed in § 522(f)(2), household furnishings, tools of the trade, or necessary health aids. Rather, he poses a different question: May a debtor avoid a lien on property which may be exempt under state law but which is not of a type specified in § 522(f)? The simple answer is no.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid certain liens on exempt property, including qualifying non-purchase money security interests in household goods.

McTearnen v. Associates Financial Services Co. of Colorado · filed 1985-11-15(f)

The purpose of § 522(f) is to protect “the Debtor’s exemptions, his discharge, and thus his fresh start by permitting him to avoid certain liens on exempt property.” ... The items in dispute do not represent the types of property a debtor needs for his “fresh start”, but can more readily be classified as “recreational” property. It is not of such a character that without it, the Debtor will not be able to support himself or his family nor will he be unable to get a “fresh start”. ... ORDERED that the lien of Associates on the disputed items of personal property cannot be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and that the lien on the other undisputed property is void.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien impairing an otherwise available exemption.

Buzzell v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (In Re Buzzell) · filed 1986-01-08(f)(1)

If the voluntary Chapter 7 petition is then filed, a debtor may either recover those funds (if otherwise exempt) by avoiding the lien under § 522(f)(1), or by setting aside the preferential transfer under §§ 547 and 522(h) (assuming the other requirements of a preference are met). If, however, the garnished wages sought to be recovered are less than $600, the debtor is barred from relying upon §§ 547 and 522(h) because of the holding in Holyfield, supra, but is still free to proceed under § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f) lets a debtor avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien to the extent it impairs an exemption.

In Re Massoni · filed 1986-09-05(f)

Title 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) allows the debtor to avoid the fixing of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien to the extent the lien impairs a debtor’s exemption in, for example, tools of trade.

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of a non-purchase money security interest securing a future advance when the purchase money character of the consumer loan is not impaired.

Matter of Kruse · filed 1990-06-25(f)

I therefore conclude that the purchase money character of a consumer loan is not impaired by a future advance of non-purchase money, provided that no payments are made to the creditor after the future advance has been made. To the extent that Beneficial holds a non-purchase money security interest to secure its future advance the lien should be avoided under Section 522(f).

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid certain judicial liens and nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interests that impair an exemption.

Eakin v. Beneficial Idaho, Inc. (In Re Eakin) · filed 1993-06-17(f)

Debtors cannot proceed under either section 522(h) or section 522(f). Section 522(f) only permits a debtor to avoid judicial liens, or nonpossessory nonpur-chase money security interests in certain types of exempt property.

A debtor’s exemption in tenancy-by-the-entireties property is fixed at filing and is not lost when a later divorce converts the ownership into a tenancy in common.

In Re Sivley · filed 1981-10-28§ 522(b)(2)(B)

The court concludes that Mrs. Sivley is entitled to the homestead exemption to which she was entitled at the time of filing.

Section 522(m) applies separately to each debtor in a joint case, allowing each co-owner of a principal residence to claim the applicable homestead exemption for the joint bankruptcy.

In re Colon · filed 2015-01-12(m)

Co-debtors in a conjugal partnership may each claim the totality of the homestead for the benefit of such partnership in a joint bankruptcy case.

In a joint case, each Colorado debtor may claim the full state-law household-goods exemption separately, subject to the debtor’s ownership interest in the property.

In Re Alvarez · filed 1981-11-02§ 522(m)

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Objection to Exemptions Claimed by Debtor is overruled, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Debtors be allowed two household goods exemptions, for a total of $3,000.00.

When a debtor’s interest in tenancy-by-the-entireties property is exempt from individual-creditor process, the trustee may sell only the debtor’s right of survivorship, not the entire property.

Stewart v. Huddleston (In Re Redmond) · filed 1981-11-09§ 522(b)(2)(B)

Therefore, the trustees may sell only the debtors’ right of survivorship.

Each Colorado debtor in a joint case may claim the full statutory household-goods and tools-of-trade exemptions separately, but only for property that debtor owns.

In Re Ferguson · filed 1981-11-10§ 522(m)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that each Colorado debtor in a joint case is entitled to claim up to $1,500.00 apiece in household goods or tools of trade.

This court held that section 522(f) does not apply in Chapter 13 because a Chapter 13 debtor cannot exempt property under section 522(b), while preserving lien cancellation under sections 506(d) and 1327(c).

Aycock v. Heritage Bank (In Re Aycock) · filed 1981-11-13§ 522(f)(2)(B)

Accordingly, this Court further concludes that Section 522(f) is not applicable in a case under Chapter 13.

Section 522(b) allows a bankruptcy debtor to choose the federal homestead exemption or the exemption provided by the debtor’s state of domicile.

In re Liao · filed 2016-07-15(b)

In a bankruptcy case, a debtor may use the federal homestead exemption or elect ... to use the homestead exemption of his state of domicile.

When a state opts out of the federal exemptions, § 522(b)(2)(A) directs the bankruptcy court to apply the state exemption law chosen by the debtor.

In Re Cate · filed 1994-08-16§ 522(b)(2)(A)

Since the Debtors have elected the state exemptions, the bankruptcy court must look to state law for an interpretation of homestead exemption rights.

Section 522(b) permits a debtor to claim an exemption in property under applicable state law, but the exemption right is personal to the debtor.

Fox v. Smoker (In re Noblit) · filed 1994-05-13§ 522(b)

The opportunity to claim an exemption would no longer be personal to the debtor, neither would it exist only for his benefit.

Section 522(b) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemption scheme, making the state’s exemption law govern the debtor’s claim.

In Re Brown · filed 1994-02-14§ 522(b)

Florida has opted out, thus the exemptions available to debtor are proscribed by state law.

A debtor loses the § 522(b)(2)(B) entireties exemption when a divorce decree within 180 days converts the property to a fee simple interest.

Cordova v. Mayer (In Re Cordova) · filed 1995-02-16(b)(2)(B)

This court holds that, in such a case, the debtor loses her § 522(b)(2)(B) exemption.

Section 522(b) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions, and New York requires its domiciled debtors to use state exemptions.

In Re McNeill · filed 1996-03-20(b)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), a state may provide that its own laws, and not the Bankruptcy Code, govern a debtor’s entitlement to exemptions, and New York State has done so.

When a state opts out of the federal bankruptcy exemptions, § 522(b)(2)(A) allows the debtor's exemption to be determined under that state's law.

In Re Kretzinger, Kretzinger · filed 1996-12-31§ 522(b)(2)(A)

Because Oklahoma has opted out of the federal bankruptcy exemption scheme, see Okla. Stat. tit. 31, § 1(B); 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), the existence and extent of debtors' homestead is governed by state law.

Under § 522(b)(2)(A), a debtor may exempt property that applicable state law exempts; because Oregon opted out of the federal exemption scheme, Oregon law controls the claimed exemption.

Yaden v. Osworth (In Re Osworth) · filed 1999-04-19§ 522(b)(2)(A)

Section 522(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to exempt from property of the estate any property exempt under applicable state law.

In an opt-out state, § 522(b)(2)(A) directs a debtor to the applicable state-law exemption scheme rather than the federal exemptions.

In Re Adcock · filed 1999-06-08§ 522(b)(2)(A)

Kansas has opted out of the federal exemption scheme, thereby preventing its residents from claiming the federal exemptions and forcing them to elect the exemptions set forth in § 522(b).

Section 522(b)(3)(A) does not force a non-Florida resident to use Florida’s opt-out exemptions; such a debtor may elect the federal exemptions under § 522(b)(2).

In Re Battle · filed 2006-12-12(b)(2), (b)(3)(A)

the Court holds that a non-Florida-resident debtor, forced into using Florida exemption law by section 522(b)(3)(A), may elect to use the federal exemptions under section 522(b)(2), because Florida’s opt-out law does not bar non-residents from claiming federal exemptions.

Section 522(b)(1) requires a debtor to choose one exemption scheme for all property rather than combining state-law and federal exemptions.

In Re Romano · filed 2007-10-11(b)(1)

Section 522(b) requires him to choose only one exemption scheme for all property.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions, leaving debtors domiciled there to claim the exemptions allowed by state law.

In re Aubiel · filed 2014-08-28(b)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), Ohio has opted out of the federal bankruptcy exemptions established under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d).

Because Louisiana opted out of the federal exemptions, Louisiana law governs a Louisiana debtor’s homestead exemption, including the scope of the exemption for community-owned property.

In re Schexnayder · filed 2015-06-18(b)

Thus, Louisiana law — and not federal law — governs a Louisiana debtor’s homestead exemption.

Section 522(b) permits debtors to exempt property from the bankruptcy estate, while applicable states may opt out of the federal exemption scheme and establish their own exemptions.

In re Elena Hernandez · filed 2020-01-24(b)

allows debtors such as Hernandez to exempt certain property from the bankruptcy estate.

Section 522(b)(1) allows a state to opt out of the federal exemptions, while § 522(b)(3) permits debtors in an opt-out state to claim applicable state-law and nonbankruptcy federal exemptions.

Kristina Marie DeVries · filed 2023-03-23(b)(1), (b)(3)

States may choose to allow individual debtors to use the federal exemptions set forth in the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 522, or the exemptions enacted under their state law. Baumgart v. Alam (In re Alam), 359 B.R. 142, 147 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2006). The Ohio legislature opted out of the federal exemptions, requiring debtors domiciled in Ohio to claim exemptions under the appropriate Ohio statutes and under otherwise applicable non-bankruptcy federal law. Id. (citing R.C. 2329.66).

Section 522(b) allows states to define exempt property but does not allow them to condition an exemption on a debtor’s attempt to negotiate repayment with creditors.

In Re Davis · filed 1981-12-10(b)

11 U.S.C. § 522(b) allows a state to determine what property will be exempt. The precondition is not a definition of exempt property; it is an act that a debtor must perform before he is allowed to claim property that will aid him to make a fresh start.

Section 522(b) lets states opt out of the federal exemption scheme and use their own bankruptcy exemptions.

In Re Tomlin · filed 2004-10-08(b)

Because ERISA’s savings clause expressly prevents it from preempting other federal statutory schemes (in this case, the Bankruptcy Code), and the Bankruptcy Code expressly invites states to regulate exemptions, ERISA cannot be read to preempt the Michigan exemption statute in a bankruptcy proceeding.

An IRA is a “similar plan” under § 522(d)(10)(E), but the exemption extends only to funds reasonably necessary for the debtor’s support.

In Re Link · filed 1994-02-28§ 522(d)(10)(E)

The Court rules that the Debtor is entitled to claim an exemption in his IRAs. However, the Court finds based upon the undisputed facts and the ... factors set forth above that the Debtor has failed to establish that the IRAs are reasonably necessary for his support.

Section 522(d)(10)(E) exempts payments under a pension, annuity, or similar plan or contract only when they are on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service and reasonably necessary for support; an IRA must satisfy those requirements despite qualifying under 26 U.S.C. § 408.

Rousey v. Jacoway · filed 2002-09-13(d)(10)(E)

Thus IRA plans would still have to meet the requirements under 11 U.S.C. § 522 (d)(10)(E) in order for IRA funds to be exempt under that provision. ... The debtors’ IRAs are not similar plans or contracts pursuant to the statute, nor are the payments under the IRAs on account of illness, disability, death, age or length of service.

Section 522(d)(10)(E) exempts payments under an annuity or similar plan only when they are made on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service and are reasonably necessary for the debtor’s or dependent’s support.

Weidman v. Shapiro · filed 2003-08-07(d)(10)(E)

In determining whether an asset is exempt under § 522(d)(10)(E), courts employ a three-part test. The right to a benefit is exempt only if the payments: ... (1) are received pursuant to a “stock bonus, pension, profit sharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract,” ... (2) are “on account of illness, disability, death, age or length of service,” and ... (3) are reasonably necessary for the debtor’s support or for the support of a dependent of the debtor. ... Appellant cannot satisfy the requirement that her payments are replacement for lost income or akin to future earnings, and thus, her annuity does not qualify for an exemption under § 522(d)(10)(E).

Section 522(d)(10)(E) is ambiguous but can encompass a debtor’s interest in a Keogh plan, including present assets funding future retirement payments, subject to the reasonably necessary support requirement.

In Re Lawrence · filed 1986-02-19(d)(10)(E)

The language used by Congress in § 522(d)(10)(E) is in fact ambiguous and probably indicates that the legislative body simply did not want to attempt the tough task of drawing a line between the case of a 30 year-old debtor, with future prospects for providing adequately for retirement, and the case of a debtor in his or her late 50’s with a real need for funds saved for that purpose. The ambiguity is appropriately resolved by including a Keogh Plan within the scope of the exemption, as a matter of law, but leaving to the factual "reasonably necessary” statutory requirement the task of policing against any abuse in the removal of such assets from the claims of creditors.

Section 522(d)(10)(E) permits exemption of a qualifying retirement-plan interest without present receipt or present entitlement to payments, subject to the extent reasonably necessary for the debtor’s or a dependent’s support.

Cardiello v. Seaton (In Re Seaton) · filed 2006-08-02(d)(10)(E)

Therefore, the Debtor may exempt the 401 (k) Plan Interest pursuant to § 522(d)(10)(E) provided, and to the extent, that such interest is reasonably necessary for the support of himself and/or his dependents.

Section 522(d)(10)(E) allows a debtor to exempt pension plan payments based on illness, disability, death, age, or length of service to the extent reasonably necessary for support, subject to specified conditions.

In Re Lawrence · filed 1999-07-02(d)(10)(E)

Fla.Stat. § 222.201 incorporates by reference the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10). Under § 522(d)(10)(E), a debtor can exempt a pension plan which is not subject to ERISA if certain conditions are met. ... When examining the plan in the context of this exemption, it is clear that the plan was created by an “insider” as that term is defined in the bankruptcy code. ... The plan payments also relate to age and length of service, especially given the vesting requirements. ... And finally, as will be discussed below, the plan does not qualify under § 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Section 522(d)(10)(E) exempts qualifying payments under pension and similar plans to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and dependents, subject to its listed conditions.

In Re Pruitt · filed 1983-05-27(d)(10)(E)

This Court also finds that 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E) is not inconsistent with Section 541(c)(2).

Section 522(d)(10)(E) exempts pension benefits only to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor or a dependent, while section 522(d)(7) does not exempt an insurance payment distinct from an unmatured life insurance contract.

Redfield v. Ansbro (In Re Goldberg) · filed 1989-04-04(d)(10)(E); (d)(7)

The executor then contends that the pension proceeds are exempt under section 522(d)(10)(E) of the Code or under Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 110 § 12-1001(g)(5). Both sections exempt pension plans from property of the estate, “to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor”. 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E); Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110 § 12-1001(g)(5). The executor’s argument may be summarily dismissed because the Debtor here is deceased and has left no dependents. Therefore, under any possible construction of the exemption statutes, no portion of the Debtor’s interest in the pension proceeds is exempt. ... When the Debtor’s petition was filed, his interest, if any, in the unmatured life insurance contract became property of the estate. That is true even though section 522(d)(7) exempts “any unmatured life insurance contract owned by the debtor”. 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(7). The property interest that the Trustee seeks to recover from the executor, however, is not the interest in the unmatured life insurance contract. Rather, the Trustee’s complaint seeks turnover of the payment under the insurance contract. Consequently, section 522(d)(7) is inapplicable to the situation here and the insurance payment is not exempt under that section.

Section 522(d)(10)(E) disqualifies a pension plan under its insider exception only if all three listed conditions are met; qualification under Internal Revenue Code § 408 can defeat the third condition.

In Re Kellogg · filed 1995-03-27(d)(10)(E)

In the instant case, the Trustee must demonstrate that the SEP Plan meets the description of subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) of § 522(d)(10)(E). With respect to subsection (iii), the Trustee maintains that the SEP Plan does not conform to the requirements of § 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the Trustee’s focus is too limited. The subsection is satisfied if the SEP Plan complies with § 408 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Trustee does not demonstrate why § 408 is inapplicable. Accordingly, the Trustee has not satisfied his burden of production under Bankruptcy Rule 4003(e).

Section 522(d)(10)(E) may exempt an IRA before the debtor reaches retirement age, to the extent it is reasonably necessary to support the debtor and dependents.

In Re Krebs · filed 2008-05-19(d)(10)(E)

The Supreme Court’s holding that IRAs may be exempted under § 522(d)(10)(E) therefore applies squarely to those debtors who have not yet reached 59% years of age.

Section 522(h) authorizes a debtor to avoid an involuntary transfer under § 547 when the debtor could have exempted the property under § 522(g)(1) if the trustee had avoided the transfer.

Biddle v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Biddle) · filed 1983-07-12§ 522(h), § 522(g)(1)

A debtor therefore has the right under § 522(h) to avoid a preferential transfer of property which the debtor could have exempted if the trustee had sought to avoid the transfer and have the property turned over, so long as the transfer to be avoided is an involuntary transfer.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs an exemption available under § 522(b); a fully encumbered property creates no exemption to preserve.

Barone v. Lynch (In Re Barone) · filed 1983-07-19§ 522(f)(1)

Based on the debtors’ own pleadings, it is obvious that Lynch’s lien has no bearing on the debtors’ ability to claim an exemption under section 522(b). Consequently, we conclude that the lien in question cannot be avoided pursuant to section 522(f)

Section 522(b)(1) allows a state to opt out of § 522(d) without requiring the state’s exemptions to match the federal exemption list.

In Re Neiheisel · filed 1983-07-26§ 522(b)(1)

Having determined what Section 522(b)(1) means in these cases, it is the court’s duty to enforce the statute.

Section 522(k) frees exempt property from administrative expenses unrelated to lien or transfer avoidance.

In re Cattell · filed 1983-08-12§ 522(k)

After the property comes into the estate, then a debt­or is permitted to exempt it, free from administrative expenses not related to avoidance of liens or transfers.

Section 522(b)(1) allows a state to opt out of § 522(d), leaving residents to claim exemptions under state or local law through § 522(b)(2)(A).

Shirkey v. Leake · filed 1983-08-23§ 522(b)(1), § 522(b)(2)(A)

Consequently, Virginians may exempt only that property which is allowed by “State or local law.” § 522(b)(2)(A).

Section 522(d)(11)(D) exempts compensation for actual bodily injury, but not amounts for pain and suffering or actual pecuniary loss.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Territo (In Re Territo) · filed 1983-08-24§ 522(d)(11)(D)

does not cover pain and suffering or compensation for actual pecuniary loss, the exemption is designed to cover only payments covering actual bodily injury, e.g., the loss of a limb.

A lien can be avoided under § 522(f)(2) only when it impairs an exemption available under § 522(b), meaning the property must qualify for and be claimed as an exemption under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In Re Hall · filed 1994-07-08(f)(2), (b), and (l)

As a result, a lien may be avoided under Federal law, i.e. under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2), only if the collateral to which the lien attaches is exempt under State law, i.e. under 31 O.S. § 1(A).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when the debtor owned the encumbered homestead on the petition date and the lien impaired the exemption then, even if the property was sold before the avoidance motion.

Culver, LLC v. Chiu (In Re Chiu) · filed 2001-08-23(f)(1)

To the extent that the cases from other circuits, cited by Culver, hold that debtors may only move to avoid a lien affixed to property interests which they currently possess, we decline to follow them. We hold that the first prong of § 522(f) only requires that the debtors have an ownership interest in such encumbered homestead property on the petition date.

Section 522(f) does not let a debtor avoid a lien on property that the applicable state exemption law excludes from the debtor’s exemptions under § 522(b).

In Re Lamar Barclay Pine, Sr., and Shirlene Tucker Pine, Debtors. Melvin Giles and Wanda Giles, Debtors v. Credithrift o · filed 1983-09-07(f)

We agree with the Fifth Circuit that section 522(f) cannot be utilized independently of § 522(b); the debtors may avoid liens only on that property which the states have declared to be exempt.

Section 522(b) determines the property a debtor may claim as exempt under applicable state law, and § 522(f) permits avoidance of a lien only when it impairs that exempt property.

Schweizer v. Chambers · filed 2010-10-07(b), (f)

In this case, when the state court entered judgment delineating the extent of Schweizer’s homestead exemption, it defined the scope and existence of Schweizer’s § 522(b) property interest. Thus, at the time of Schweizer’s bankruptcy filing, the 160-acre parcel determined by the state court, and not any other division of Schweizer’s 320 acres, was subject to the lien avoidance protections of § 522(f). Section 522(f) provides that “the debtor may avoid the fixing of 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 subsection (b) of this section . . . .” Consequently, § 522(f) protections are only available if a lien impairs a debtor’s § 522(b) exempt property. Here, the state court defined what property Schweizer was allowed to claim as exempt, but Schweizer disregarded the state court’s definition, claimed that other land was exempt, and sought to avoid liens to portions of his 320-acre property that are not covered by § 522(b). This, clearly, is not allowed.

Section 522(f) protects exemptions by permitting avoidance of judicial liens and qualifying nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interests, but not mortgage liens on real estate.

Brace v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (In Re Brace) · filed 1983-09-20§ 522(f)

mortgage liens on real estate.

Section 522(f)(1) allows lien avoidance based on the lien and exemption, and fraud is not a defense in that action.

Nesset v. Blueher Lumber Co. (In Re Nesset) · filed 1983-09-26§ 522(f)(1)

fraud is not an issue which may be raised in an action by a debtor to avoid a lien under § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(b) permits use of a state exemption, but §§ 522(c) and 522(f) preempt a state-law limitation for pre-acquisition debts and authorize avoidance of a judicial lien impairing the homestead exemption.

Bruin Portfolio, LLC v. Leicht (In Re Leicht) · filed 1998-07-07(b)(2)(A), (c), (f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

In the end, however, we are convinced that, although through § 522(b) Congress provided states with the opportunity to define the category and content of exemptions resident debtors may invoke in bankruptcy (going so far as to authorize states to “opt out” of the federal exemption scheme), it defined the operative effect of exemptions in bankruptcy through §§ 522(c) and (f).

Section 522(f) permits Texas debtors to avoid nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money liens on otherwise exempt household goods whether they choose federal or state exemptions.

In Re Thompson · filed 1986-04-04(f)

Section 522(f) lien avoidance will be available to Texas debtors whether they elect federal or state exemptions. In the present cases, this Court holds that those debtors claiming state exemptions may, under § 522(f), avoid the nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money liens held by Aetna Finance Company on household goods otherwise exempt under the laws of the State of Texas.

Section 522(b) permits debtors to use state exemptions when a state opts out of federal exemptions, and § 522(f) governs avoidance of specified liens impairing exemptions.

In Re Miller · filed 1989-06-23(b), (f)

Thus, once a State has exercised its option to utilize its own exemption statutes rather than the Federal exemptions set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 522(d), a particular debtor may utilize the state provided exemptions only and may not pick and choose between the State and Federal exemptions. ... We find that the Oklahoma state exemptions are to be dovetailed with the items listed in the Federal lien avoidance statute.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) makes the amount and method of calculating an exemption for a joint-tenancy interest depend on applicable state nonbankruptcy law.

In Re Miles · filed 1983-11-10§ 522(b)(2)(B)

This court declines to adopt the rationale of ... and instead concludes that the ... opinion correctly states the law.

Section 522(b)(3)(A) directs a debtor who has not been domiciled in one state for 730 days to use the law of the prior 180-day domicile, while § 522(b)(3)(C) permits federal exemptions only when that rule leaves the debtor ineligible for any exemption; § 522(g) does not bar an exemption unless the trustee has recovered property after an avoidable transfer.

Bierbach v. Brooks (In Re Brooks) · filed 2008-07-29(b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(C), (g)

Because Debtors did not reside in Pennsylvania during the 730-day period before filing, however, § 522(b)(3) requires the Court to look to their place of domicile for the 180 days preceding December 7, 2005, the petition date, to determine the available exemptions. ... Because Debtors in the within case are not “ineligible for any exemption,” they may claim Maryland exemptions, but only as permitted under Maryland law. Accordingly, I conclude that Debtors may not claim the Porsche or its proceeds as exempt under § 11 — 504(f). ... Despite this voluntary transfer, however, § 522(g) is not applicable because the Trustee neither avoided the transfer nor recovered the Porsche. The Trustee filed a motion for turnover, but did not actually bring any property into the estate. Therefore, § 522(g) may not be used to deny Debtors’ exemption claim.

Section 522(f) gives Chapter 13 debtors the power to avoid qualifying liens.

In Re Fisk · filed 1984-01-27§ 522(f)

Therefore since § 103(a) expressly makes Chapters 1, 3, and 5 apply in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 13, a Chapter 13 debtor retains lien avoidance power.

Section 522(f) lien-avoidance provisions are available to Chapter 13 debtors.

Fisk v. Allis Chalmers Credit Corp. · filed 1984-01-27§ 522(f)

THE LIEN AVOIDANCE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE ARE AVAILABLE TO A CHAPTER 13 DEBTOR.

Section 522(h) permits debtor avoidance only to the extent the debtor could exempt the recovered property under § 522(g)(1), which excludes voluntary transfers.

In Re Ward · filed 1984-01-30§ 522(h), § 522(g)(1)

the debtors cannot utilize subsection (h) because section 522(g)(1) does not allow the exemption of property recovered if the transfer was a voluntary transfer by the debtor.

Section 522(h) permits a debtor to avoid an otherwise avoidable transfer only to the extent the property could have been exempted under § 522(g)(1).

Ward v. Building Material Distributors · filed 1984-01-30§ 522(h)

Subsection 522(h) provides that if a transfer is avoidable and the trustee does not act, then a debtor may avoid a transfer of property to the extent that the debtor could have exempted the property under subsection (g)(1) of section 522.

Section 522(f) operates as a federal supplement to the selected exemption scheme and avoids a qualifying lien when the property fits an applicable exemption category.

In Re Law · filed 1984-02-24§ 522(b), § 522(d), § 522(f)

§ 522(f) can be brought to bear to avoid the lien to the extent of the applicable exemption.

Section 522(d)(3) supplies the property category supporting § 522(f)(2)(A) avoidance of a household-goods lien, up to the statutory per-item limit.

Matter of Lewis · filed 1984-02-23§ 522(d)(3), § 522(f)(2)(A)

Congress evidenced its intent to make subdivision (d)(3) serve as the basis of the lien avoidance provision of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A) by making the two provisions applicable to identical property interests of debtors.

Section 522(h) permits a debtor to pursue an otherwise avoidable transfer when the trustee does not act and the debtor could have exempted the property under § 522(g)(1).

In Re Garris · filed 1984-02-09§ 522(h), § 522(g)(1)

and (2) the trustee does not attempt to avoid such transfer.

Section 522(f) creates no new exemption; it only permits avoidance of a lien impairing an exemption available under § 522(b).

In the Matter of Allen · filed 1984-02-21§ 522(b), § 522(f)

What is clear from the language of section (f) is that it does not create any new exemptions.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a judicial lien on exempt property up to the exemption amount, regardless of the debtor’s equity.

Schmidt v. Kessler (In Re Schmidt) · filed 1983-10-21§ 522(f)(1)

The court therefore holds that a debtor may employ Section 522(f)(1) to avoid a judicial lien on exempt property in the amount which he may claim as exempt, regardless of the amount of equity the debtor has in the property.

Section 522(c)(1) permits collection from exempt property of taxes the debtor was required to collect or withhold.

In Re Holl · filed 1983-10-25§ 522(c)(1)

Title 11, U.S.C. § 522(c)(1) allows collection of taxes required to be collected or withheld by debtors from exempt property.

Section 522(f)(2)(B) permits avoidance of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on property actually used as tools of trade.

In Re Currie · filed 1983-10-27§ 522(f)(2)(B)

A careful reading of both statutes indicates that the debtor is entitled to exempt and avoid liens on property actually used as tools of trade.

Section 522(f)(2) applies to gap-period liens created after enactment but before the Bankruptcy Code’s effective date.

McFarland v. Farmers Production Credit Ass'n (In Re McFarland) · filed 1983-10-31§ 522(f)(2)

In sum, this Court holds that § 522(f)(2) applies retroactively to gap liens, such as those held by PCA in the case at bar.

Section 522(d) provides a federal exemption scheme that a debtor may elect instead of state exemptions, but the two schemes may not be mixed.

John T. Mather Memorial Hospital v. Pearl · filed 1983-11-04§ 522(d)

The federal Bankruptcy Code gives a debtor the option to use his federal exemptions, 11 U.S.C. § 522(d) (1979), or his state exemptions, but he may not mix them.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a judicial lien only when it impairs an exemption, with impairment determined alongside state-law priority rules.

Orsburn v. Diners Club, Inc. (In Re Orsburn) · filed 1983-11-10§ 522(f)(1)

This Court is now convinced that the language of § 522(f)(1), permitting the debtor to avoid the fixing of a judicial lien where “such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled,” must be read in conjunction with state law governing priorities of real property interests.

Section 522(g) allows exemption of property recovered by the trustee only when the debtor’s transfer was involuntary; voluntary transfers fail § 522(g)(1)(A).

In re Obshatkin · filed 1983-11-17§ 522(g), § 522(g)(1)(A)

Accordingly, the requirement of § 522(g)(1)(A) has not been met, and the debtors’ argument that they may exempt the $551.40 pursuant to that section must fail.

Section 522(f)(2)(B) permits avoidance of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money lien on trade tools when the debtor is legitimately engaged in the trade using them.

Matter of Decker · filed 1983-11-21§ 522(f)(2)(B)

For purposes of Section 522, the debtor need only prove that he is legitimately engaged in a trade which regularly uses the specific tools or implements being exempted.

Section 522(c)(2)(C) does not govern a tax lien that was unenforceable against exempt property when the petition was filed.

Stephenson v. South Dakota (In Re Stephenson) · filed 1983-11-21§ 522(c)(2)(C)

Because the tax lien is unenforceable against the debtors’ homestead at the time of filing the bankruptcy petition, 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(C) does not govern.

Section 522(f)(1) requires a lien on the debtor’s property, impairment of an otherwise available exemption, and a judicial lien.

Elsner v. Aman Collection Service, Inc. (In Re Elsner) · filed 1983-12-19§ 522(f)(1)

Three requisites must be established before a lien may be avoided as a judicial lien. First, the lien of the creditor must be against an interest of the debtor in the property; second, the lien must impair the exemption to which the debtor would otherwise be entitled; and third, the lien must be a judicial lien.

Section 522(h) lets a debtor avoid a preferential transfer when the debtor could have exempted the property if the trustee had avoided the transfer.

Deel Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Levine · filed 1983-12-19§ 522(h), § 522(g)(1), § 522(b)

Since he could have exercised that exemption, he can stand in the trustee’s shoes to avoid the lien himself.

Section 522(f)(1) authorizes avoidance only when a judicial lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor is entitled.

Register v. Reese (In Re Register) · filed 1983-12-27§ 522(f)(1)

defendant’s lien does not “impair” an exemption to which the debtors are entitled.

Section 522(b) provides mutually exclusive exemption choices; a debtor using § 522(b)(2) may claim applicable federal or state-law exemptions other than § 522(d).

Hovis v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 1983-12-29§ 522(b), § 522(b)(2), § 522(d)

The two sub-paragraphs of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b) are exclusive.

Sections 522(g) and (h) allow avoidance of a preferential transfer when the trustee does not act, the transfer was involuntary, the debtor did not conceal the property, and the property could have been exempted.

In Re Bennett · filed 1984-01-04§ 522(g), § 522(h)

These sections of the Code allow the debtor to avoid a Section 547 preferential transfer if the Trustee does not choose to act and if: (1) The debtor’s transfer of the property in question was not voluntary, (2) the debtor did not conceal such property, and (3) the debtor could have exempted such property but for the transfer.

Section 522(f) does not permit avoidance of a judicial lien on property the debtor no longer owns.

In Re Montemurro · filed 1984-01-10§ 522(f)

In the absence of a compelling reason not to construe the section’s language literally, the Court is constrained to deny the debtors’ motion on this basis alone.

Section 522(b) makes the § 522(d)(7) exemption dominant over § 541, allowing exemption of an unmatured life-insurance contract and its proceeds.

Bancohio National Bank v. Walters · filed 1984-01-11§ 522(b), § 522(d)(7)

We read the language of § 522(b) which provides that “[notwithstanding section 541” a debtor may elect any of the applicable exemptions provided by § 522, to make the exemption provisions of § 522(d)(7) dominant over the after-acquired inclusion provision of § 541 on which appellant relies.

Section 522(d)(11)(D) and (E) permit exemption of bodily-injury and future-earnings compensation, including when the court invokes the support exemption on the facts.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Territo · filed 1984-01-18§ 522(d)(11)(D), § 522(d)(11)(E)

The court finds as well that the debtor has a second basis for exempting the sum in question in 11 U.S.C. Section 522(d)(ll)(E).

Section 522(b)(1) authorizes a state to opt out of § 522(d) without requiring comparable state exemptions.

In Re Gauntt · filed 1984-01-20§ 522(b)(1), § 522(d)

Nothing in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 requires states which preempt the use of federal exemptions to provide exemptions comparable to, concomitant with, or corresponding to the exemptions found in Section 522(d), either in category or amount.

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of an impairing judicial lien using property value measured as of the bankruptcy petition date.

In Re Dvoroznak · filed 1984-03-13§ 522(f)

Having determined the appropriate point in time to measure the value of debtors’ exempt property is the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, it remains to review the parties’ testimony to determine the avoidability of the judicial liens.

Section 522(f)(1) does not let debtors preserve avoided judicial liens for themselves when mortgages fully encumber the property.

Simonson v. First Bank of Greater Pittston (In Re Simonson) · filed 1984-03-15§ 522(f)(1)

since the debtors’ property is fully encumbered even without the judicial liens, the debtors may not preserve the judicial liens for their own benefit.