11 U.S.C. § 522

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on a residence even when the debtor has no monetary equity in the property.

In Re McQueen · filed 1995-03-28(f)

It is clear from the comments made in amending § 522(f) that the statute was originally intended to provide a debtor the opportunity to avoid a judicial lien in a residence without regard to the debtor’s monetary interest in that residence.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) defines impairment through a mathematical calculation; where no value remains above consensual liens and exemptions, the judicial lien is avoidable under § 522(f)(1).

In Re Thomsen · filed 1995-05-16(f)(2)(A)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A), Debtors’ exemptions are impaired, and Debtors are entitled to avoid the judicial hen of A & P Brown in the subject property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).

A confession-of-judgment lien is a judicial lien that may be avoided under § 522(f)(1) to the extent it impairs the debtor’s homestead exemption.

In re Matrone · filed 1995-06-07(f)(1)

This Court is persuaded that the Confession of Judgment obtained in this case should be treated as a judicial lien subject to avoidance under § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) requires the statutory arithmetic formula for measuring impairment, which here permits complete avoidance of the judicial lien.

Jones v. Mellon Bank, N.A. (In Re Jones) · filed 1995-06-23(f)(2)(A)

Application of § 522(f)(2)(A) to the facts of this case leads us to conclude that debtor is entitled to avoid the judicial lien of Mellon Bank in the amount of $10,954.29 in its entirety.

A debtor may avoid judicial liens that impair an absolute state-law homestead exemption available upon commencement of the bankruptcy case.

In Re Lynch · filed 1995-08-22§ 522(f)(1); § 522(b)(2)(A)

In any event, it is clear that under Kentucky law the homestead exemption provided for by KRS 427.060 is an absolute exemption available to an individual debtor upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case. Accordingly, the motion of the debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) to avoid judicial liens as liens that impair his homestead exemption shall be sustained.

Section 522(f)(1) permits debtors to avoid Minnesota constitutional liens as judicial liens when those liens impair exemptions to which the debtors would have been entitled.

In Re Croce · filed 1995-12-28(f)(1)

Under the well established and well reasoned law of the District, liens established pursuant to Article I, Section 12, of the Minnesota Constitution, are “judicial liens” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1); and, they are avoidable by debtors to the extent that the liens impair exemptions to which debtors would have been entitled.

Section 522(f)(1) does not allow a debtor to avoid a consensual lien or security interest because the lien is not a judicial lien.

Naqvi v. Fisher · filed 1995-12-29(f)(1)

The $125,000 lien is, therefore, a consensual lien or security interest under the Code, and it is not avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) does not allow a debtor to avoid a lien that arose automatically under a state statute, even when a later judgment was entered to enforce it.

In Re Wiltcher · filed 1996-05-03§ 522(f)(1)

The Court further holds that under the Bankruptcy Code, since the hen arose by operation of the Mississippi statute, the hen is a statutory hen, and the judgment entered in favor of Mr. Martin did not transform the statutory hen into a judgment hen.

A debtor must have equity in the property before a judicial lien can be avoided as impairing an exemption.

Avery v. Fraser Firs · filed 1996-10-15§ 522(f)

We hold to the reasoning of Fitzgerald and its progeny. Since the Averys have no equity in their Plum Tree residence, they cannot avoid under section 522(f) the liens that the Partnerships hold.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption when the debtor has an interest in the property and claims an available exemption.

In Re Vasquez · filed 1997-02-12§ 522(f)(1)(A)

Thus, this section permits a debtor to avoid a lien if four requirements are met: (1) the lien that the debtor seeks to avoid is a judicial lien; (2) the debtor claims an exemption in the property to which the debtor is entitled under § 522(b); (3) the creditor’s lien impairs the debtor’s exemption; and (4) the debtor has an interest in the property.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) does not allow avoidance of a condominium lien that is not a judicial lien.

King v. Cherrywood Residents Ass'n (In Re King) · filed 1997-05-07(f)(1)(A)

Accordingly, the court finds that the condominium lien obtained pursuant to the applicable subject provisions of Maryland law is not a judicial lien as defined under the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, Debtor may not avoid the condominium lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1) does not allow avoidance of a lien that is substantively a security interest, even when the lien is later embodied in a final judgment.

In Re Beckley · filed 1997-05-12(f)(1)

After examining the nature of the lien, and not the form in which it appeal’s before the Court, the hen is not avoidable pursuant to section 522(f)(1) because it is a security interest, rather than a “judicial hen.”

Under § 522(f)(1)(A), a debtor may not avoid a judicial lien that attaches simultaneously with the debtor’s acquisition of the property, because the debtor’s property interest must exist before the lien fixes.

In Re Mark Scarpino, Debtor. Marine Midland Bank v. Mark Scarpino, Debtor-Appellee · filed 1997-05-13§ 522(f)(1)(A)

Given New York’s “settled rule,” we conclude that Marine Midland’s judgment lien attached to Searpino’s Monroe County property simultaneously with his acquisition of the property. Accordingly, the lien is not avoidable pursuant to § 522(f).

When calculating whether a lien impairs an exemption under § 522(f)(2)(A), all liens on the property, including consensual and judgment liens, are added to the exemption amount.

Zeigler Engineering Sales, Inc. v. Cozad (In Re Cozad) · filed 1997-05-02(f)(2)(A)

The statute plainly provides that these items are to be deducted from the debtor’s interest “in the absence of any liens.” The Bankruptcy Court was correct in deducting the liens from one-half of the fair market value of the property as set forth in the statute.

A lien that arises solely by force of statute is a statutory lien and cannot be avoided under § 522(f).

In Re Fennelly · filed 1997-06-16(f)

Consequently, appellant’s hen was a statutory lien, and thus could not be avoided under § 522(f).

Under § 522(f)(2)(A), a partially undersecured judicial lien need not be avoided in its entirety; avoidance is limited to the amount of impairment calculated by the statute’s formula.

In Re Ryan · filed 1997-06-16§ 522(f)(2)(A)

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court concludes that partially undersecured judicial liens need not be avoided in then-entirety in applying the formula under section 522(f)(2)(A).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) does not permit avoidance of an equitable lien that predates and is merely recognized by a judgment, because the lien is not a judicial lien.

Cloud v. Cloud (In Re Cloud) · filed 1997-07-17(f)(1)(A)

The controlling view in this circuit is that an equitable lien, as distinguished from a judicial hen, is not avoidable. ... The chancellor’s imposition of the hen merely recognized the Plaintiffs pre-existing property right, which was equitable rather than judicial in nature. ... Therefore, the Plaintiffs equitable lien' is not avoidable under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A).

Impairment is determined by adding the exemption amount, the judgment debt secured by the judicial lien, and the outstanding balances of other liens, and the lien may be avoided to the extent that this total exceeds the property’s value.

Pepper v. Public Service Employees Credit Union (In Re Pepper) · filed 1997-06-27(f)(2)(A)

Here, the legislative history clarifies that what is meant by “lien” in section 522(f)(2)(A) is the amount of the judgment or other debt that is secured by the lien. This is consistent with the definition of “lien” in section 101(37) of the Code. Thus, in making the section 522(f)(2)(A) analysis, one is to add the amount of the allowed homestead, the amount of the judgment and the outstanding balance of the debt secured by all other liens. To the extent this sum exceeds the value of the property, the judgment lien “impairs” the exemption and may be avoided.

A partially undersecured judicial lien need not be avoided in full; only the portion exceeding the debtor’s equity after accounting for non-judicial liens and exemptions may be avoided.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Finn (In Re Finn) · filed 1997-09-05(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

For the reasons stated herein, we hold that partially undersecured judicial liens need not be avoided in their entirety pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). Rather, pursuant to the formula, only that portion of the lien which exceeds a debtor’s equity in the property, taking into account the non-judicial liens and the debtor’s exemptions, may be avoided.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien that impairs an exemption deemed incontestable under § 522(l), even if the debtor was not otherwise entitled to the exemption under changed state law, but only to the extent the property is exempt.

In Re Andres · filed 1997-09-16(f)(1)(A)

To hold now that this exempt property remains subject to a hen which impairs the exemption would contradict that which the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court have clearly mandated and make the exemption entirely meaningless. ... Thus, Debtor may avoid this hen pursuant to § 522(f)(1)(A). ... Debtor may only avoid the garnishment hen to the extent it is exempt, and it is only exempt up to $1,000.00.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and an execution lien arising from a levy qualifies as a judicial lien.

Skinner v. First Union National Bank (In Re Skinner) · filed 1997-09-23(f)(1)(A)

The execution lien held by First Union arose as the result of a levy of execution. It thus is a “judicial lien” and may be avoided by the debtor to the extent that such hen impairs an exemption to which the debtor would otherwise have been entitled.

A debtor may avoid a judicial lien under § 522(f) only when it impairs an exemption available under the applicable state exemption scheme; the state may opt out of the federal scheme.

In Re Colston · filed 1997-10-07(f), (f)(1), (b)(1), (g)(1), (h)

Thus in order for a debtor to be permitted to avoid a judicial hen using § 522(f), the debtor must first demonstrate that the hen “impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section----”

A valid prepetition lien cannot be avoided under § 522(f) unless it impairs an exemption and is one of the enumerated avoidable liens.

In Re Richardson · filed 1997-09-30(f)

Neither of these requirements have been met in this case.

Under § 522(f)(2)(A), a lien impairs an exemption to the extent all liens plus the exemption exceed the property's fair-market value.

In Re Gostian · filed 1997-07-29(f)(2)(A)

The exemption is impaired to the extent the total of ah hens on the property plus the exemption exceed the fair market value of the property.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but the avoidance is conditioned on receiving a discharge.

In Re Stroud · filed 1997-11-20§ 522(f)(1)(A)

that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), the Debtor is entitled to avoid said lien and to have same canceled of record as to the Property, provided the Debtor is granted a discharge in this Chapter 13 case or in a succeeding Chapter 7 case in the event of conversion to Chapter 7 under Title 11 of the United States code.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien only when it impairs an exemption, and this court held that a lien unenforceable while the debtor occupies her homestead does not impair that exemption.

In Re McKinney-Jones · filed 1998-04-06(f)(1)(A)

This right does not impair the debtor’s exemption for execution and sale can only occur when she ceases to use the property for her home and, at that time, the exemption no longer exists.

The Court held that § 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of judicial liens impairing the debtors’ homestead exemption, and that applying the § 522(f)(2)(A) formula showed the liens were avoidable in their entirety.

In Re Groff · filed 1998-08-07(f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A)

The final issue, then, for the Court to decide is whether St. Mary’s judicial liens impair the debtors’ homestead exemption, for a lien may be avoided under § 522(f)(1)(A) only to the extent that it impairs an exemption to which the debtors are entitled. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). Section 522(f)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the formula to be applied in determining whether a lien impairs an exemption. ... Based on these figures, application of the formula reveals that the debtors’ homestead exemption is impaired by St. Mary’s judicial liens, which, therefore, are subject to avoidance in their entirety.

A debtor may avoid a judicial garnishment lien under § 522(f)(1)(A) to the extent that it impairs an exemption the debtor has successfully claimed.

In Re Allen · filed 1998-12-18§ 522(f)(1)(A)

Of course, since any garnishment lien that PCB might possess is concededly judicial in nature, the debtor would be entitled, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), to avoid said lien in any event to the extent that it impairs the exemptions that the debtor has already successfully asserted.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, and under § 522(f)(2)(A)'s arithmetic test the lien is avoidable even when other liens equal or exceed the property's value.

In Re Ostroff · filed 1999-07-13§ 522(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

Since the amendments were clearly designed to permit debtors to avoid judicial liens in situations where the sum of the non-judicial liens equals or exceeds the value of the property, pre-amendment decisions holding otherwise are not useful, and post-amendment rulings to the contrary would be in direct conflict with the mandatory provisions of the statute.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that fixes on the debtor’s property and impairs an exemption to which the debtor would otherwise be entitled.

Taylor v. Taylor (In re Taylor) · filed 2001-01-02(f)(1)(A)

Under applicable bankruptcy law, a debtor may avoid the fixing of a judicial lien on the debtor’s property to the extent that it impairs an exemption to which she is otherwise entitled. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). However, in order to avoid a lien, three conditions must be met: (1) the hen must be a judicial lien; (2) the lien must fix on an interest of the debtor in property; and (3) the lien must impair an exemption of the debtor. ... Enforcement of the judgment lien held by George and Inis Taylor against the debtor’s property would operate as an impairment of the homestead exemption to which she is entitled under Arkansas law. Because of this, George and Inis Taylors’ lien is avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). The debtor’s Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien is hereby granted.

Section 522(f)(1)(A), using § 522(f)(2)'s impairment formula, allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien in full when the lien plus other liens and the exemption exceed the debtor's interest in the property, even if unavoidable liens leave no equity.

In Re Freeman · filed 2001-01-10(f)(1)(A), (f)(2)

Thus, under the first view, only Mrs. Freeman’s one-half interest in the property ($105,000/2= $52,500) would be applied to the formula. Given the fact that the sum of Hospital’s lien, plus the two mortgages on the property, plus Mrs. Freeman’s homestead exemption exceeds Mrs. Freeman’s interest in the property by $109,927.53, which is clearly more than the amount of the lien, the judicial lien is fully avoidable pursuant to § 522(f)(1)(A). ... ORDERED that Hospital’s judicial lien in the amount of $46,927.53 is avoided in full pursuant to § 522(f)(1)(A) and (f)(2).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption, but not a consensual lien created by agreement.

In Re Chu · filed 2001-01-31(f)(1)(A)

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid only judicial liens, not liens created by agreement.

Section 522(f)(1) does not permit avoidance of a valid Florida attorney's charging lien because it is not a judicial lien.

Weed v. Washington · filed 2001-02-28(f)(1)

Accordingly, we affirm the conclusion of the district court that a valid attorney's charging lien under Florida law is not a "judicial lien" that may be avoided pursuant to § 522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but it does not apply to a statutory lien.

In re Mitchell · filed 2001-03-01(f)(1)(A)

Based on the analysis of the Mississippi statutes apphcable to the creation, perfection, and enforcement of a construction hen, set forth in paragraph IV, the court concludes that the hen in this proceeding is a statutory hen which may not be avoided by the debtors pursuant to § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f) requires a debtor seeking to avoid a judicial lien to prove an interest in the property, entitlement to an exemption, impairment of that exemption, and that the lien is judicial.

Premier Capital, Inc. v. DeCarolis (In Re DeCarolis) · filed 2001-03-15(f)

Debtor has the burden of proof on all avoidance issues. ... He must establish the four applicable elements of § 522(f) to avoid Premier’s lien on the IRA: ... (1) Debtor has an interest in the IRA; ... (2) Debtor is entitled to an exemption in the IRA; ... (3) The lien impairs that exemption; and ... (4) The lien is a judicial lien.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) lets a debtor avoid the fixing of a judicial lien to the extent the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled.

Jackson v. K.A.S. Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Jackson) · filed 2001-03-23(f)(1)(A)

Under Section 522(f)(1)(A), a debtor may avoid the fixing of a judicial lien to the extent the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled. As of the commencement of the case, the wages had not been disbursed, the Debtor was entitled to exercise his exemptions under federal law, and the record did not establish that the Debtor did not have an interest in the funds. See Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 76.075. The amount transferred is less than $400.00, the amount to which the Debtor would have been entitled under Missouri exemption law. The Court finds and concludes that the Plaintiff may avoid the fixing of the attachment of the garnishment lien on the wages represented by the Third Transfer pursuant to Section 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and § 522(f)(2)(A) measures impairment by adding the lien, other liens, and the exemption and comparing that sum with the unencumbered property value.

In Re Smith · filed 2001-03-30(f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A)

Section 522(f)(1) of the Code permits the avoidance of judicial liens on exempt property if the lien impairs the debtor’s exemption. ... In determining whether a judicial lien impairs a debtor’s exemption, a bankruptcy court must apply the mathematical calculation contained in § 522(f)(2)(A), which states: ... Because the impairment amount — $12,-705.23 — exceeds the amount of Rahn’s lien — $10,467.99, the lien is avoidable in full.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a lien impairing an exemption only when the lien is a judicial lien, not a statutory lien.

In re Chambers · filed 2001-07-12(f)(1)(A)

In West Virginia, the mechanics’ liens arise and are created by the force of statute, and are merely enforced through judicial proceedings. Therefore, since a mechanic’s lien under West Virginia law is a statutory lien, the Court finds that the Debtor may not avoid the lien of 84 Lumber under § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid judicial liens and specified nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interests, but not consensual liens such as a mortgage.

In Re Davenport · filed 2001-09-04(f)(1)

Finally, the Debtors cannot utilize 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) to avoid Area Bank’s mortgage as § 522(f) does not permit a debtor to avoid a consensual lien. Section 522(f)(1) only permits a debtor to avoid judicial liens (which are non-consensual in nature) or nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interests in household furnishings and other items specified in § 522(f)(1)(B).

Section 522(f) allows only the portion of a judicial lien that actually impairs the exemption to be avoided; excess equity is not avoidable.

In Re Lokay · filed 2001-11-07(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

Only the remaining $7,519.81 ($17,174.00 - $9,654.19 = $7,519.81) is avoidable in accordance with §§ 522(f)(1)(a) and (f)(2)(A).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, and § 522(f)(2)(A) requires all other liens, including unsecured or undersecured consensual liens, to be included in calculating that impairment.

Kolich v. Antioch Laurel Veterinary Hospital, Inc. (In Re Kolich) · filed 2002-02-22(f)(1)(A) (f)(2)(A)

Section 522(f)(2)(A)(ii) refers to “all other liens on the property” and requires their inclusion in the calculation. The Bankruptcy Code defines a lien as a “charge against or interest in property to secure payment of a debt or performance of an obligation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(37). Norbank’s second Deed of Trust falls within that definitional language and accordingly should have been included in the calculation. The lien avoidance formula and the statutory definition, read together, plainly so require.

Section 522(f) permits partial avoidance only to the extent a judicial lien impairs the exemption; the remaining lien survives and remains enforceable.

In Re Vokac · filed 2002-02-08(f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A)

Hence, the Creditors’ judicial lien impairs the Debtors’ exemption to the extent of $50,302.62. The remainder of the Creditors’ judicial lien — $88,190.00 — is not subject to avoidance by the Debtors.

When applying the § 522(f)(2)(A) impairment formula to jointly owned property, the court allocates the debtor’s property interest, mortgage debt, and lien proportionately.

In Re: Gary M. Miller, Debtor Gary M. Miller v. Okmi Sul A/K/A Okmi Garner Ronda J. Winnecour, Esq., Trustee · filed 2002-08-06(f)(2)(A)

In our view, the correct approach is to view the debtor as owning one half of the property to which one half of the mortgage debt is thus attributable and therefore to regard “property” in subsection (ii) to mean the debtor’s interest in the property and then to allocate the lien among the interests in the property proportionately.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid the fixing of a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, but a motion exercising that power against an Indian tribe is a suit subject to tribal immunity absent an unequivocal waiver in federal bankruptcy court.

Mayes v. Cherokee Nation (In Re Mayes) · filed 2003-06-11(f)(1)(A)

The Court today holds that a § 522(f) lien avoidance brought as a contested matter under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9014 constitutes a suit and, in the absence of an unequivocal waiver of immunity in federal bankruptcy court, is subject to tribal immunity.

Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, subject to the statute’s exceptions and mathematical formula.

In Re Goodale · filed 2003-07-25(f)

For the foregoing reasons, the debtor has met all of the requirements under Section 522(f) and may avoid the hen of the Judgment according to the mathematical formula in Section 522(f)(2).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) does not allow a debtor to avoid a judgment lien that does not impair the debtor’s Florida homestead exemption.

In Re Epstein · filed 2003-07-29(f)(1)(A)

The Court having careftilly considered the motion together with the record and argument of counsel, concludes that Parke’s judgment lien does not impair the Debt- or’s homestead exemption and cannot be avoided under § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f) places on the debtor the burden of showing entitlement to avoid a judicial lien and applies through a straightforward mathematical calculation.

Reggiardo v. Prischmann · filed 2003-11-12(f)

Under § 522(f), the debtor has the burden of showing that she is entitled to avoiding a judicial hen. ... Here, the debtor made no prima facie showing that she was entitled to have the senior liens avoided. ... Since application of section 522(f) is simply a straightforward mathematical exercise, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion with respect to the defaulting parties. ... Given that the court did not err in valuing the property at $465,000 and that it properly denied the motion to avoid the liens of the defaulting parties, it properly applied the formula given in § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption.

In Re Schick · filed 2003-11-18(f)(1)

The debtor, Tracey L. Schick, asserts that the lien held by the NJ MVC is a judicial lien, which impairs her entitlement to a homestead exemption, and which should be avoided by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). ... For the reasons expressed below, I conclude that the Hen held by the NJ MVC is a judicial lien, as that term is defined under the Bankruptcy Code, which may be avoided to the extent that it impairs the debtor’s homestead exemption.

Section 522(f) does not allow a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that is not against an interest of the debtor in the property.

In Re Farrenkopf · filed 2004-02-13(f)(1)

However, because the Lien is not against an interest of the Debtor in the Property, Debtor may not avoid it under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f) does not permit a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when a state court has determined that the debtor has no valid homestead exemption under state law.

In Re Zambre · filed 2004-03-01(f)

Thus, because the State Court has determined that Debtors herein do not have a valid homestead under state law, they cannot avoid the Bank’s attachment under section 522(f).

Section 522(b) allows an individual debtor to exempt qualifying property, and § 522(f)(1) allows the debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs that exemption.

Bagley v. Robert Scott Gordon, Inc. (In Re Bagley) · filed 1979-10-18(b), (f)(1)

Since the debtor claimed no exemption under paragraph (1) of subsection (d) he is entitled to claim as his exemption, not only his interest, “not to exceed $1,200 in value in one motor vehicle,” as provided in § 522(d)(2) but also his “aggregate interest, not to exceed in value $400, plus any unused amount of the exemption provided under paragraph (1) of this subsection, in any property,” as stated in § 522(d)(5). ... It is therefore clear that the debt- or is entitled to his automobile as part of his exemption. Having claimed it, his complaint to avoid the lien which would impair his exemption must be granted. ... (2) since the debtor’s ability to enjoy said exempt property is impaired by the judicial lien against said property placed thereon by the defendant, Robert Scott Gordon, Jr., said lien is hereby avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1); ... (4) the defendants are directed to surrender the debtor’s 1977 Monte Carlo motor vehicle to the debtor.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, subject to constitutional limits when applied to certain pre-effective-date liens.

Lucero v. Security Industrial Bank · filed 1980-06-16(f)(1)

Because the application of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) to the Defendant in this case would deny it substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, the complaint will be dismissed with an appropriate order.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a Chapter 13 debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent that it impairs a claimed exemption.

Jordan v. Borda (In Re Jordan) · filed 1980-05-16(f)(1)

Clearly the debtor can utilize Section 522(f) in Chapter 13.

Section 522(f)(1) is constitutional and allows debtors to avoid judicial liens to the extent the liens impair a claimed exemption.

In Re Anspach · filed 1981-08-05(f)(1)

For reasons hereinafter given, we conclude that Section 522(f)(1) is constitutional, and grant the requested abandonment.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs an exemption and attaches to property in which the debtor has an interest; actually claiming the exemption is unnecessary.

Yamamoto v. City Bank (In Re Yamamoto) · filed 1982-03-08(f)(1)

Initially the Court finds that the fact that Debtors did not claim the garnisheed wages as an exemption is irrelevant to the application of section 522(f). Under this section the debtor may avoid the fixing of a judicial lien to the extent that the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor is entitled to exempt. Thus, actual exemption is unnecessary. ... Under section 522(f), the Debtors may avoid the fixing of a lien only on a property in which they have an interest. Once the garnishee lien was perfected, Debtors no longer had a legal interest in the garnished wages. Debtors may have had an equitable interest in the garnisheed wages, but proper steps to preserve that interest were not taken. Therefore, Debtors had no legal or equitable interest in the garnisheed wages and thus, no “interest in property” to which a judicial lien could attach under section 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a judicial lien impairing an exemption, but only when the judicial lien still exists on the bankruptcy petition date; a lien already extinguished through enforcement by sale and delivery of deed cannot be avoided.

Camacho v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Sterling (In re Camacho) · filed 1982-03-30(f)(1)

The plaintiff’s second cause of action is premised on 11 U.S.C. § 522(fXl) which authorizes the avoidance of judicial liens which impair exemptions applicable to debtors. Again, the facts presented establish no cause of action in favor of Mrs. Camacho. Under the facts, the judicial lien had been completely enforced through a sheriff’s sale and delivery of a deed to the purchaser and its recording, all prior to the petition for relief being filed. Accordingly, no judicial lien existed on the date of the filing of the petition for relief. In other words, the judicial lien had been extinguished through its enforcement by sale and delivery of deed.

Section 522(f)(1) does not permit avoidance of a judicial lien when, under applicable state law, the liened property is not exempt to the extent of the lien.

Adams v. Amada (In Re Adams) · filed 1982-06-07(f)(1)

That section allows a debtor to avoid a judicial 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 [11 U.S.C. § 522(b)].” ... The Court concludes, therefore, that the Defendant’s judicial lien against the Plaintiff’s property does not impair an exemption to which the Plaintiff would be otherwise entitled under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b) because the Plaintiff’s property is not exempt to the extent of the value of Defendant’s judicial lien.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien, including a pre-effective-date “gap” lien, to the extent it impairs an exemption.

Fainor v. First National Bank of Allentown (In re Fainor) · filed 1983-02-16(f)(1)

Therefore, we hold that the defendant’s judicial lien of March 22, 1979 may constitutionally be avoided, pursuant to § 522(f)(1), to the extent it impairs an exemption of the debtors.

Section 522(f)(1) allows avoidance of judicial liens that impair an exemption, but does not authorize avoidance of a mortgage, which is a consensual security interest.

Lowry v. First American Title Insurance (In re Lowry) · filed 1983-02-23(f)(1)

Since a mortgage is a security interest created by agreement, and since it is apparent that a mortgage does not fit the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of a judicial lien, it is obvious that the literal language of § 522(f)(1), allowing for the avoidance of judicial liens, does not provide for the avoidance of a mortgage.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption, including a lien predating the 1978 Act, without raising a constitutional retroactivity problem.

Ashe v. United States · filed 1983-07-08(f)(1)

What Congress did in section 522(f)(1) adds nothing of constitutional dimensions, with respect to the avoidance of judicial liens, to what it did in 1898. There is no reason, therefore, to assume that Congress intended that those liens would be affected only prospectively.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under § 522(b), notwithstanding a waiver of exemptions.

Berry v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Berry) · filed 1983-09-30(f)(1)

Construing the provisions of Section 522(f) liberally and in light of the Congressional goal to provide sufficient exemptions to allow the debtor to maintain some dignity while attempting financial recovery, it is clear that Section 522(f) is intended to expand the exemption granted in Section 522(b). To read it restrictively would render (f) mere repetition — a redundancy-providing for exemptions already exempt under (b). The purpose of Section 522(f) seems to be that of allowing exemption of property that would have been exempt under (b) if the liens did not exist. ... The debtor in the case before this Court did not comply with the provisions of the North Carolina exemption statute before bankruptcy, and under state law “waived” his right to an exemption. However, bankruptcy ensued and the clear language of Section 522(f) states that despite waiver, the debtor may avoid certain liens. This Court is of the opinion that this language speaks as much to “statutory” waiver as any other types of waiver. ... The Judicial lien on the property herein is avoided pursuant to Section 522(f)(1), and the debtor can claim his exemption in such property.

Section 522(f)(1) voids a judicial lien to the extent it impairs the debtor's exemption, including the liens at issue here.

Clifton v. Tavares (In Re Clifton) · filed 1983-10-06(f)(1)

Because the trustee concluded that the property would yield no value to the estate after payment of the mortgage and the debtors’ exemptions, I conclude that the judicial liens at issue would impair the debtors’ right to a $15,000 exemption. Section 522(f)(1) therefore voids all liens challenged by the plaintiff-debtors.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption, and it does not impose a statutory time limit on the lien-avoidance motion; a lien securing an attorney’s fee awarded in a divorce decree is not a division of spousal property and is avoidable.

In Re Chesnut · filed 1985-07-03(f)(1)

A lien in favor of a former spouse thus represents a division of spousal property and is not within section 522(f)(1). The obligation to pay Trojan was created by the divorce decree which awarded the fee and granted the attorney’s lien to secure payment. That obligation in no way represents a division of property. ... After analysis of the foregoing, we conclude the better rule is not to impose a time limit on lien avoidance motions by judicial gloss. Thus, the debtor may serve the motion at any time. ... Accordingly, it is ordered that the debt- or’s motion for lien avoidance is timely and that § 522(f) operates to avoid Trojan’s judicial lien.

Section 522(f)(1) allows debtors to avoid a judicial lien on exempt wages.

In Re Moore · filed 1985-08-16(f)(1)

In conclusion, this court holds that the $1,659.56 presently in the possession of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama, has been properly exempted by the debtors. The garnishment is a judicial lien avoidable by the debtors under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) as to exempt wages.

Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien, including a tort judgment lien, when it impairs an exemption despite contrary state law.

In Re Lawery · filed 1985-12-30(f)

The conclusion is that the provisions of Alabama case law relating to a tort judgment overcoming exemption right is itself overcome by the provisions of Title 11, U.S.C. § 522(f), and such tort judgment as is held by Commercial Union and Stevens is then subject to avoidance under Title 11, U.S.C., § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien.

Martz v. Pennsylvania Central Federal Credit Union · filed 1986-02-05(f)(1)

Furthermore, the Court’s research leads to the conclusion that Defendant’s judgment lien is avoidable under Bankruptcy Code Section 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when the debtor claims an applicable exemption, the lien impairs that exemption, and the debtor has an interest in the property.

Johnson v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Johnson) · filed 1986-02-06(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a lien if four requirements are met: (1) the lien the debt- or seeks to avoid is a judicial lien; (2) the debtor claims an exemption in the property to which the debtor is entitled under § 522(b); (3) the creditor’s lien impairs the debtor’s exemption; and (4) the debtor has an interest in the property. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but an equitable lien arising from a pre-existing constructive-trust interest is not a judicial lien avoidable under the provision.

In Re Lodek · filed 1986-04-07(f)(1)

The Court thus holds that the equitable lien of $3,000 on Debtors’ homestead is not a judicial lien avoidable under § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on the debtor's property to the extent the lien impairs an otherwise available exemption, including when the lien secures a dischargeable divorce property settlement.

In Re Earnest James Pederson, Debtor. Bonnie Jean Stedman v. Earnest James Pederson · filed 1989-05-30(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to “avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under [federal, state or local law] if such lien is ... a judicial lien....” 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1), (b). ... In this case, the lien imposed by the Washington Superior Court is a judicial lien as defined in the Code: It was created by a judgment, as required by section 101(32), and it is a “charge against” the property awarded to Pederson to secure payment of the $8,000 debt owed to Stedman. ... To the extent that Pederson’s homestead was exempt under state law, Stedman’s lien impaired an exemption to which Pederson would have been entitled under section 522(b).

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption available under § 522, even when the underlying debt is nondischargeable for fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

In the Matter of Harold P. Walters and Patricia A. Walters, His Wife, Debtors v. United States National Bank in Johnstow · filed 1989-07-20(f)(1)

The bank has referred us to no legislative history, nor have we found any, suggesting that section 523 was intended, generally, to trump section 522. Indeed, had that been the intention the exceptions in section 522(c) would have been redundant. ... The drafters of the exemption section thus were aware that exempt property would be protected against some, but not all, non-dis-chargeable debts. ... There is no such conflict, because the Bankruptcy Code has several goals, not the least of which is giving debtors a fresh start in life. ... While we might have struck a different balance, we are not free to disregard the clear legislative judgment.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs an exemption, so avoidance of a lien on a contingent survivorship interest must await vesting of that interest.

In Re Dick · filed 1992-02-07(f)(1)

Therefore, this Court concludes that the better approach is to let Ollar’s judicial lien stand until the debtor’s contingent interest either vests or is destroyed. If this contingent survivorship interest vests, the debtor may move the Court to reopen his case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) for the purpose of moving to avoid Ollar’s judicial lien “to the extent that” Ollar’s judicial lien then impairs the debtor’s homestead exemption. II U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1) does not let a debtor avoid a divorce-proceeding lien that attached to an interest awarded contemporaneously, rather than to a pre-existing interest.

In Re Haynes · filed 1992-11-16(f)(1)

Applying the principles of Sander-foot to Indiana law and the specific case before the Court, the Court concludes that to the extent that Truex has a lien against the Property pursuant to the dissolution decree, that lien in non-avoidable under 11 U.S.C. section 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f) permits a debtor in an opt-out state to avoid a judicial lien to the extent the property could have been exempted absent the lien, based on the debtor’s exemption rights as of the petition date.

In Re Mayer · filed 1993-06-29(f)

Legislative history reveals that Congress did intend that § 522(f) should operate in opt-out states. ... Under § 522(f), the court must determine whether the debtor would have been entitled to the exemption in the absence of the lien. ... The nature and extent of a debtor’s exemption rights are determined as of the date of the petition. ... Thus, the legislative history and the holdings in this circuit provide that the debtor may avoid a judicial lien on any property to the extent that the property could have been exempted in the absence of the lien.

Section 522(f) does not provide lien-avoidance relief when no exemption is available under applicable state law.

Burrell v. Ervin G. Letterlough, Charles Davis Burrell v. Ervin G. Letterlough, Charles Davis Burrell v. E · filed 1993-08-30(f)

Burrell was not entitled to relief under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(f) (1988) because no exemptions were available under Virginia law.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption, and a lien arising from a consent judgment is judicial when it derives from the later judgment rather than an expressly agreed consensual lien.

Bank of Stockton v. Applebaum (In Re Applebaum) · filed 1993-09-27(f)(1)

The issue in this case is whether a lien arising from a settlement and stipulated judgment which consents to the filing of an abstract of judgment creates a lien that is a “judicial lien” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). ... This section contains three requirements a moving party must establish before a lien on exempt property can be avoided: (1) the lien must be a judicial lien; (2) the lien must be against an interest of the debtor in property; (3) the debtor must be entitled to the exemption that the lien would impair. ... The Bank’s lien is not consensual, but judicial. ... Moreover, the Bank’s lien is judicial because it derives its power from a subsequently executed judgment. ... Section 522(f) accordingly applies and the filing of the lien may be avoided.

Section 522(f) does not allow avoidance of a judicial lien when state law makes the claimed homestead exemption unavailable to a debtor who retains the property.

Higgins v. Closeout Distributors, Inc. (In Re Higgins) · filed 1993-08-13(f)

In this case, Ohio has done exactly that; it has accorded a debtor in bankruptcy no homestead exemption unless his or her homestead property is involuntarily sold or transferred as a part of the bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, in the case of the debtor in the instant case, who has chosen to retain rather than sell the property, there is simply no exemption which can be claimed, and the lack of an exemption is determined not by the presence or absence of a judicial lien or other claim avoidable under § 522(f), but rather results from the operation of the statutory language recognizing the exemption only upon “execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order....”

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of a judicial lien only when the lien impairs an exemption; under Colorado law, a judgment lien that never attaches to exempt homestead property does not impair the homestead exemption.

In Re Shaff · filed 1993-08-31(f)

But more importantly, as this Court has previously held in In re Fry, 83 B.R. 778 (Bankr.Colo.1988), under Colorado law a judgment lien can never “impair” the Debtors’ homestead exemption as required by 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) simply because the judgment lien never attaches to that exempt property.

Section 522(c)(1) prevents a debtor from using § 522(f)(1) to avoid a judicial lien securing child or spousal support debt excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

In Re Citrone · filed 1993-10-14(c)(1), (f)(1)

2. The debtor’s motion under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) to avoid two judicial liens entered against him by his former wife, Linda Daniele, for nonpayment of child and spousal support is denied because 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(1) expressly excepts such debts, which are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), from lien avoidance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but it does not permit avoidance of a statutory lien.

In Re Schick · filed 2004-05-04(f)(1)(A)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that because the NJ MVC’s hen arises by force of the surcharge statute, the NJ MVC’s hen is statutory under 11 U.S.C. § 101(53), and thus cannot be avoided under section 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a post-petition judicial lien that impairs an exemption, while Section 522(c) generally protects exempt property from pre-petition nondischargeable debts not expressly excepted.

Bank of Cushing v. Vaughan (In Re Vaughan) · filed 2004-07-07(f)(1)(A), (c)

By its plain language, this statute contains no qualifications as to when the lien must attach. To understand the purpose and intention of this subsection, we must consider Section 522 as a whole. Other provisions of Section 522 set forth limitations as to when exemptions may or may not trump a creditor’s claim or lien rights, but they focus on the nature and timing of the claim, rather than the time when the lien affixed. ... The fact that Section 522(c) expressly excepts a few debts that are nondischargeable under Section 523, but makes no mention of the others, evidences Congressional intent to insulate exempt property from most nondischargeable debts. ... Thus, we find no deterrent to avoiding a lien arising from a non-dischargeability judgment, even though the lien does not arise until after a petition in bankruptcy is filed. There is nothing in either Section 522(c) or (f) that would prevent this result.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only to the extent the lien impairs the debtor’s exemption, with impairment measured by § 522(f)(2)(A)’s lien-and-value calculation.

Lindsey v. Spagnol (In Re Lindsey) · filed 2004-08-24(f)(1)

Avoidance of a judicial lien is not an “all-or-nothing” occurrence.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) requires a judicial lien to be treated as impairing an exemption under the statutory arithmetic formula even when the judicial lien is senior to a consensual lien.

Moldo v. Charnock (In Re Charnock) · filed 2004-12-15(f)(2)(A)(ii)

The plain meaning of Section 522(f)(2) requires avoidance of Creditor’s judicial lien, even though that lien is senior to a consensual lien.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and the underlying nature of the secured debt does not prevent avoidance.

In Re Adell · filed 2005-02-01(f)(1)(A)

For a debtor to avoid a lien under § 522(f)(1)(A), the debtor must establish the following: (1) that a judicial lien had been fixed on the subject property, (2) in which the debtor has an interest, (3) the judicial hen impairs the debtor’s right to have full benefit of the exemption available to debtors under the applicable law. The only exception contained in the statute relates to judicial liens that secure a debt owed to the debtor’s former spouse for support or maintenance. ... Finally, the nature of JRH’s underlying claim or “right to payment” is irrelevant for purposes of avoiding the lien under Section 522(f). ... Accordingly, it is ... ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Judicial Lien based on the Judgment entered by the Michigan Bankruptcy Court on April 25, 2003, be, and the same is hereby, avoided and no longer enforceable pursuant to Section 522(f)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(f)(1) does not let a debtor avoid a judicial lien when the lien attaches simultaneously with a new property interest granted by a divorce decree, because the debtor did not possess that interest before the lien was fixed.

In Re Hartman · filed 2005-02-03(f)(1)

This court agrees with Judge Flan-nagan’s analysis of state divorce law, as it impacts the application of § 522(f)(1). Under the facts of this case, a joint marital estate in the subject real property was created on the date Alva Hartman filed his divorce petition in both spouses, and in all other property owned by either spouse. The divorce decree, entered several months later, then granted Debtor a new fee simple interest in the real property, and that same decree simultaneously granted Ewert a judicial lien, with the obvious and expressed intent of equalizing the division of property. Because Debtor never possessed his new fee simple interest before her judicial hen was “fixed,” he may not use § 522(f) to avoid her lien.

Section 522(f) allows avoidance of a judicial lien against exempt property, but does not allow avoidance of a statutory lien on the condominium unit itself.

Jacobs v. Vineyards Condominium Ass'n (In Re Jacobs) · filed 2005-04-28(f)

The lien is avoidable as a judicial lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) with regard to any exempt property other than the condominium unit, but the Association’s statutory lien on the unit itself by virtue of O.C.G.A. § 44-3-109(a) is not avoidable under § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) does not permit avoidance when the debtor’s property interest arose simultaneously with the judicial lien.

In Re Whelan · filed 2005-04-15(f)(1)

Based on the foregoing authorities, especially the reasoning analysis of the Supreme Court in Farrey this Court is satisfied that at the time the Debtors purchased their homestead, their interest came into existence simultaneously with the judicial lien of the Credit Union.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a lien impairing an exemption only when the lien is a judicial lien; a statutory mechanic’s lien is not avoidable merely because a court later enters a foreclosure judgment.

In re Thames · filed 2005-06-20(f)(1)(A)

“The state court decision was in enforcement of the lien; it did not create the lien. As a result, the judicial decision did not change the lien from a statutory lien to a judicial lien.” ... Stronks’s lien is a statutory lien, not a judicial lien, and may not be avoided under § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f)(1) concerns avoidance of the fixing of a lien on the debtor’s interest, so a lien attached before the debtor acquired the new interest cannot be avoided under the provision.

In Re Vizard · filed 2005-06-13(f)(1)

... § 522(f) does not pertain to “avoidance of any lien on a property,” but instead expressly permits the avoidance of “the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor.”

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, but does not permit avoidance of a statutory lien.

In Re: Schick · filed 2005-08-09(f)

If it is a judicial lien, it may be avoided by the Debtor-Appellant, Tracey L. Schick, under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) to the extent that it impairs her entitlement to a homestead exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(1). However, if statutory, the lien may not be avoided by the Debtor. ... For the reasons discussed below, we find that the MVC’s lien is statutory.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien in a later Chapter 13 case when the statutory requirements are met, even if the lien was not avoided in an earlier Chapter 7 case.

In Re Haque · filed 2005-10-18(f)

There is nothing in the language of the Bankruptcy Code, however, to suggest that a judicial lien that is not avoided in an earlier Chapter 7 case may not be avoided in a subsequent Chapter 13 if the requirements of section 522(f) are met.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows avoidance of a judicial lien impairing an exemption, but it cannot be invoked after the debtor has fully satisfied and extinguished the lien.

Wilding v. CitiFinancial Consumer Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Wilding) · filed 2005-11-09(f)(1)(A)

We agree with the bankruptcy court that, because the lien was fully satisfied, it was no longer fixed on property of the Debtor at the time he filed his Motion to Avoid Lien. Accordingly, it was too late to employ the benefits of § 522(f) of the Code.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs an exemption; the portion that remains on the property rides through bankruptcy unaffected and may continue accruing postpetition interest.

In Re Kanakaris · filed 2006-03-23(f)(1)(A)

Section 522(f)(1) states 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 .... ” “The purpose of § 522(f) is to protect a debtor’s exemptions,” ... The Court finds therefore that a judgment creditor’s lien, to the extent it remains on debtor’s property, rides through the debtor’s bankruptcy unaffected. This Court has no authority to stop the accruing of postpetition interest or “modify” a judgment creditor’s unaffected judgment lien by virtue of debtor’s avoidance action.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) does not permit avoidance of statutory liens, including a properly perfected attorney’s statutory charging lien.

In Re Bingham · filed 2006-06-22(f)(1)(A)

An attorney’s statutory charging lien which is properly perfected before the client files for bankruptcy is a statutory lien that cannot be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid an inchoate judicial lien on the debtor’s interest in entireties property when the lien impairs an exemption.

Wansor v. First Place Bank (In Re Wansor) · filed 2006-07-25(f)(1)(A)

Liens on exempt property may be avoided under § 522(f)(1)(A) which provides that a 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 if such lien is — (A) a judicial lien....” 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). ... The Bank has at least an inchoate lien. In accordance with the above authorities, we conclude that the Bank has a lien on the Debtor’s interest in entireties property which impairs the Debtor’s exemption. The Debtor’s Motion to Avoid Liens will be sustained.

Section 522(f)(1) imposes no time limit on a debtor’s motion to avoid a judicial lien.

In Re Male · filed 2007-01-25(f)(1)

As for any delay in reopening the case to obtain the relief requested, the court notes that there are no time limitations under § 522(f)(1) on the debtors’ motion to avoid lien. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). The doctrine of laches, however, is an equitable defense that a creditor may raise to bar the requested relief of a debtor upon a showing that the debtor was guilty of unreasonable delay which prejudiced the creditor.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but not a statutory lien.

In Re Ahokas · filed 2007-01-26(f)(1)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court holds that the state court amended judgment contains two distinct lien components, that it is proper to bifurcate the amended judgment into its statutory lien and judicial lien components, and that only the judicial lien may be avoided under § 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court further holds that the portion of the judgment that arises under the Contractor’s Lien Law is a statutory lien, that it accounts for $13,304.85 of the total state court amended judgment, and that it may not be avoided under § 522(f). By contrast, the Court holds that the portion of the state court amended judgment that arises under the Prompt Payment Act is a judicial lien, that it accounts for $41,569.96 of the total state court amended judgment, and that it may be avoided under § 522(f). Since the Court also holds that this judicial lien impairs the Debtor’s exemption, the Debtor is entitled to avoid that lien pursuant to § 522(f).

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien after satisfying it, so long as the lien impaired an exemption as of the bankruptcy petition date or the later date on which property became part of the estate.

Wilding v. CitiFinancial Consumer Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2007-01-30(f)

Thus, we hold that a debtor may avoid a judicial lien under § 522(f) even if he has satisfied the lien prior to filing a motion to avoid, so long as the lien in question impaired an exemption as of the bankruptcy petition date (or the later acquired property date) as reflected in the statutory definition of "value" under § 522.

Section 522(f) does not permit avoidance of a judicial lien that did not attach to the debtor’s interest in the property, including a lien that arose before the debtor acquired the property.

In Re Farnsworth · filed 2008-03-19(f)(1)(A)

This court agrees with White. The hen is not avoidable under § 522.

Section 522(f)(1) does not permit avoidance of a lien that attached before the debtor acquired the property interest to which the lien fixed.

Cadle Co. v. Banner (In Re Banner) · filed 2008-08-27(f)(1)

This court holds above that the Debtor may not avoid the Judgment Lien pursuant to Section 522(f).

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

In Re Moore · filed 2008-12-05(f)

The final remaining issue is the Debtor's Motion to Avoid Judgment Lien, in which she seeks to avoid a judgment lien held by Capital One Bank in the total amount of $6,285.79 plus 26.99% interest. In this Motion, the Debtor relies on her purported exemption of the entire value of her real property. However, as discussed above, the Debtor is not entitled to assert such an exemption. Based on the $65,000 value of the property and the lien of $17,232.42 against the property held by the Bank of Marion and secured by a properly perfected deed of trust, the Debtor has $47,767.58 in equity remaining in the property. In order to avoid any portion of the judgment lien, the Debtor would need to properly assert an exemption in the real property of an amount greater than $41,481.79. Under this Court's ruling, however, the Debtor is only entitled to claim an exemption under applicable Virginia law of $7,405.40 based upon a $65,000 current valuation against her creditors or the Trustee in bankruptcy. [9] Thus, the Debtor cannot show that the exemption to which she is entitled is impaired by the existence of the judgment. Therefore, the Debtor's Motion to Avoid Judgment Lien must be denied.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a lien securing a late-payment penalty when the debt is not a domestic support obligation and the lien impairs the debtor’s homestead exemption.

Smith v. Pritchett (Smith) · filed 2008-12-29(f)(1)(A)

The late payment penalty cannot be considered in the nature of alimony or support.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but not a statutory lien.

Smith v. Botzet (In Re Smith) · filed 2009-02-10(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1) authorizes the avoidance of a judicial lien that impairs an exemption to which a debtor would otherwise be entitled. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). ... Judicial liens may be avoided under Section 522(f)(1), but only if they also impair some exemption to which Debtor would otherwise be entitled. If, however, Mr. Botzet’s liens are statutory liens, they may not be avoided even if they impair some exemption of Debtor.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) may potentially avoid an equitable mortgage classified as a judicial lien when it impairs the debtor’s exemption.

Kedzuf v. Turetsky (In Re Turetsky) · filed 2009-04-02(f)(1)(A)

Kedzufs equitable mortgage constitutes a perfect case in point for the foregoing rule of law- — without this Court’s instant decision granting to Kedzuf his equitable mortgage, such equitable mortgage would not even exist, which means that such equitable mortgage necessarily (a) was obtained, at least in part, by way of the instant judgment, and (b) thus constitutes a judicial lien under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and the court applied that provision to avoid the lien on the debtors’ home.

Treadwell v. Glenstone Lodge, Inc. (In Re Treadwell) · filed 2009-06-16(f)(1)(A)

Section 522(f)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a debtor “may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled ... if such lien is ... a judicial lien.” ... Consequently, since I have found that the debt is dischargeable, Glenstone Lodge’s judicial lien on the Treadwells’ home will be avoided pursuant to § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of judicial liens, but not consensual liens.

In Re Smith · filed 2009-10-09(f)(1)(A)

Unlike judgment liens, a debtor cannot use 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A) to strip a consensual lien.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid an exemption-impairing lien only when it is a judicial lien; a consensual mortgage is not avoidable under this provision.

In Re Ingram · filed 2010-01-28(f)(1)

As the bankruptcy court explained to the Appellant at the hearing on his motion, a mortgage is not converted into a judicial lien by virtue of a foreclosure. The lien that Chase held on the Appellant's property was a mortgage, not a judicial lien. Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that the lien cannot be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a lien impairing an exemption only when the lien is a judicial lien; a consensual mortgage is not converted into one by foreclosure.

In re: William Ingram v. · filed 2010-01-28(f)(1)(A)

A mortgage is not converted into a judicial lien by virtue of a foreclosure.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when it impairs an exemption the debtor would have been entitled to claim, even if the debtor did not actually claim that exemption.

Botkin v. DUPONT COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION · filed 2010-05-17(f)(1)

Given the plain language of § 522(f) and its legislative history, and in light of the “fresh start” objectives of the Bankruptcy Code, the court concludes that § 522(f) does not require that a debtor actually claim an exemption in the property subject to a judicial lien. Instead, the statute only requires that the lien impair an exemption to which the debtor “would have been entitled under subsection (b)” in the absence of any liens. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1), applying the impairment formula in § 522(f)(2)(A), permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs an exemption; any portion supported by remaining equity is not avoidable.

Pearson v. Security Properties, LLC (In Re Pearson) · filed 2010-04-16(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

The question before the Court is whether a debtor can avoid a judicial lien, in its entirety or only “to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption,” when only part, or a portion, of the lien actually impairs the debtor’s exemption. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that a debtor can only avoid a judicial lien to the extent the lien exceeds a debtor’s equity in the property subject to such lien.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a lien impairing an exemption only when the lien is a judicial lien; a valid Florida attorney’s charging lien is not avoidable on that basis.

In Re Murray · filed 2010-12-06(f)(1)(A)

Having already accepted the State Court’s determination that the Charging Lien is valid, the Court concludes that it is not a judicial lien and cannot be avoided under § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption; the impairment calculation includes other liens and the exemption amount against the value of the debtor’s interest without liens.

Gilchrist v. United Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Gilchrist) · filed 2010-12-17(f)(1)

Because Bank of America’s mortgage is still valid as to Mary Gilchrist’s dower interest, Bank of America’s lien must be considered in the section 522(f) analysis. The sum of (1) United Bank’s judgment lien ($150,000.00); (2) all other liens on the property, or Bank of America’s lien ($228,-000.00); and (3) the Debtors’ exemptions (collectively $20,150.00), a total of $385,150.00, exceeds the value of the Debtors’ interest in the property absent any liens, or $215,000.00. Because United Bank’s judgment lien of $150,000.00 impairs the Debtors’ exemptions, the judgment lien is avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) treats a judicial lien as impairing an exemption when the lien, other liens, and the exemption amount exceed the debtor’s lien-free interest in the property.

In re Hamilton · filed 2011-03-18(f)(2)(A)

Whether a judicial lien impairs a debtor’s exemption is determined in aecor-dance with the formula found in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A). ... Because the sum of the judicial lien on the Prince Property and the amount of the exemption that the Debtor could claim if there were no liens on the Property ($112,-518.44) exceeds the value that Ms. Hamilton’s interest in the Property would have in the absence of any liens ($55,000), Mr. McKinney’s transcript of judgment impairs Ms. Hamilton’s homestead exemption and the judicial is to be avoided in its entirety. The Court therefore finds in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) that the Motion to Avoid Lien of Roy McKinney should be granted.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of an impairing judicial lien, except when the lien secures a debt specified in § 523(a)(5).

Altman v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 2011-03-21(f)(1)(A)

Having found that the Debtor’s obligations under the Probate Court Judgment, as clarified, is a DSO, the Debtor cannot avoid the judicial lien created by the writ of attachment against 4 High Rock Road, Wayland, Massachusetts.

Section 522(f)(1) does not let a debtor avoid a consensual mortgage lien as a judicial lien merely because the mortgage has been merged into a foreclosure decree.

In Re Ruck · filed 2011-05-18(f)(1)

the consensual lien of the mortgage to a judicial lien that is avoidable by use of § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption even when the underlying debt is nondischargeable, except for a lien securing a debt specified in section 523(a)(5).

In Re Hunnicutt · filed 2011-08-23(f)(1)(A)

Courts have routinely held that the avoidability of a lien is not affected by the dischargeability of the underlying debt. ... Based on the overwhelming authority that a lien may be avoided despite the nondischargeability of the underlying debt, the Court finds that the alleged nondischargeability of Mr. Drennan’s debt is immaterial to a determination of his lien’s avoidability.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when it impairs an exemption the debtor would have been entitled to claim under applicable law but for the lien.

White v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co. (In Re White) · filed 2011-11-16(f)(1)

To determine the avoidability of a judicial lien, a bankruptcy court should ask not whether the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor is in fact entitled, but whether it impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under applicable law but for the lien itself. ... Since both debtors’ property would be totally exempt in the absence of Commercial Bank’s liens, it follows that ... the bank’s lien impairs the debtors’ exemption and is therefore avoidable.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption, but it does not permit avoidance of a consensual lien.

Carter v. Estate of Heimer (In Re Carter) · filed 2012-03-13(f)(1)

Pursuant to I.C.A. § 626.37, the Heimer estate is subrogated to all the rights of the bank and is now the holder of that consensual lien. Debtors could not have avoided that lien under § 522(f)(1) when it was held by the bank, and they may not avoid it under § 522(f)(1) now that it is held by the Heimer estate.

Section 522(f)(1) does not allow a debtor to avoid a consensual lien merely because it is transferred by subrogation to a judgment creditor.

Carter v. Estate of Leon J. Heimer · filed 2012-03-13(f)(1)

Debtors could not have avoided that lien under § 522(f)(1) when it was held by the bank, and they may not avoid it under § 522(f)(1) now that it is held by the Heimer estate.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a lien impairing an exemption only when the lien is a judicial lien; a consensual security interest is not avoidable under it.

1200 Buena Vista Condominiums v. Young (In Re Young) · filed 2012-03-30(f)(1)

In sum, the lien maintained by the Association for the Debtor’s non-payment of assessments is properly characterized as a “security interest” under the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the Association’s lien is subject to the anti-modification provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), and is not a “judicial lien” that may be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). As a result, any plan or reorganization proposed must propose to pay the Association the full amount of its allowed secured claim, and the Debtor’s Adversary Proceeding must be dismissed.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only when it is fixed on an interest of the debtor in property.

Maslar v. Martin · filed 2012-04-12(f)(1)(A)

Section 522(f) relates only to property in which the debtor has an interest. Inasmuch as the Conveyed Property has been finally determined to be owned by Karen, § 522(f) is inapplicable.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor entitled to exempt garnished funds or property to avoid the creditor’s garnishment lien as a judicial lien.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Johnson (In re Johnson) · filed 2012-09-25(f)

A debtor entitled to exempt garnished funds or property may avoid the creditor’s lien on the property as a judicial lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on the debtor’s property to the extent the lien impairs an exemption, and the provision concerns property of the debtor rather than property of the bankruptcy estate.

Ramos v. Negron (In re Ramos) · filed 2013-10-22(f)(1)(A)

Property of the estate is not implicated under § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption; for Illinois tenancy-by-the-entirety property, that permits avoiding a lien against the exempt fee interest but not against the debtor's nonexempt individual contingent future interests.

In re Yotis · filed 2014-09-26(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1) allows the avoidance of a judicial lien, except for a judicial lien relating to a domestic support obligation “to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled.” § 522(f)(1)(A). ... Here, as to the fee simple interest in the Property held in the tenancy by the entirety, the amount of the exemption is unlimited, so the exemption covers the entirety of the debtor’s interest in the property. Thus, the sum of the amount of the exemption and the lien exceeds the value of the debtor’s interest in the property in the absence of any liens, and any lien as to present interests of the judgment debtor and his wife in entireties property may be avoided. ... However, as to future interests held by the Debtor individually as a result of the tenancy by the entirety, liens may not be avoided because they are not avoidable because they are not exempt.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits complete avoidance of a judicial lien when the lien impairs the debtor’s allowable homestead exemption under the statutory formula.

In re Wright · filed 2015-02-13(f)(1)(A)

The result is that Satterfield’s judicial liens are wholly avoidable under § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of judicial liens on the debtor’s property to the extent they impair an exemption, including property held in a self-settled revocable trust that is part of the bankruptcy estate.

Nielsen v. Field (In re Nielsen) · filed 2015-03-11(f), (b)(1), (d)(1)

For the reasons stated below, I hold that such liens are avoidable under Bankruptcy Code § 522(f), but factual questions remain about the extent to which the liens are avoidable.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) requires impairment to be calculated using the judicial lien, all other liens, and the exemption available absent liens, and § 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of the impairing judicial lien.

In re Gokay · filed 2015-08-14(f)(2)(A)

First, the formula applies to define “impairment” under the Bankruptcy Code— state law does not apply to define impairment. ... Thus, regardless of how the State defines the contours of the homestead exemption, the formula provided by § 522(f)(2)(A) applies to determine “impairment” of the homestead exemption and here the State judgment lien impairs the Gokays’ respective homestead exemptions.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, with § 522(f)(2)(A) determining impairment through the statutory sum-and-subtract calculation.

In re Rommer · filed 2016-03-31(f)(2)(A)

Under that statute, the Debtor must establish the lien in question is a judicial lien and that it impairs his homestead exemption. ... Following the formula set forth in § 522(f)(2)(A) for determining whether a lien impairs an exemption, the Debtor adds (i) the hens being tested for avoidance ($51,838.99), (ii) all other liens ($79,547.00), and (iii) the maximum exemption allowance in the absence of hens ($125,000.00), to arrive at the sum of $256,385.99. Then, the Debtor subtracts from this sum the value of the Property absent any liens ($190,000.00) to determine the extent of the impairment: $66,385.99. Since the extent of the impairment of the exemption, $66,385.99, exceeds the entire value of the judicial hens, $51,838.99, all judicial hens, including GMB's, are avoidable.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption; liens arising after the Arkansas administrative adjudication process qualify as judicial liens and are avoidable.

In re Leaks · filed 2016-07-08(f)(1)

Accordingly, the liens represented by the Certificates are the result of a process or proceeding within the meaning of the Code’s definition of a judicial lien and as such are avoidable under section 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when it fixed on an interest of the debtor in property and impairs an exemption the debtor would have been entitled to; a lien attached while the debtor owned the property and remaining through a later acquisition satisfies the fixing requirement.

In re Cannon · filed 2016-09-16(f)(1)

Under § 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may avoid a judicial lien if (1) the hen had fixed on an interest of the debtor in property, and (2) the hen impaired an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled. ... The record shows: (1) that the 25% property interest is exempt in the Debtor’s bankruptcy case; (2) that Taylor’s lien impairs the exemption; (3) that Taylor’s lien had attached to the Property while the Debtor was an owner; and (4) that the lien had remained on the Property until the Debtor acquired the 25% interest. ... Under these circumstances, the Debtor may avoid the judicial lien under § 522(f), because Taylor’s Hen had fixed on an interest of the Debtor in property, and the lien impaired an exemption to which the Debt- or would have been entitled.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid an existing but unenforceable judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but it does not apply when state law created no judicial lien at all.

CRP Holdings, A-1, LLC v. O'Sullivan (In Re O'Sullivan) · filed 2016-11-14(f)(1)

We agree with the BAP that unenforceable liens may be avoided under § 522(f)(1). ... We are persuaded by the distinctions drawn by other appellate courts and conclude that where a judgment gives rise to an unenforceable lien, a debtor may move to avoid that lien under § 522(f). When a judgment fails to give rise to any judicial lien (including an unenforceable lien), however, § 522(f)(1) is superfluous and without application.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) excludes from judicial-lien avoidance a lien securing a debt of the kind described in § 523(a)(5), including a debt in the nature of spousal support.

In re: Joseph M. Gately · filed 2016-11-15(f)(1)(A)

To avoid the lien, the debtor must satisfy three conditions: (1) that there was a fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property; (2) that the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled; and (3) that the lien is a judicial lien. ... But § 522(f)(1) specifically excludes some liens including: “a judicial lien that secures a debt of a kind that is specified in [§] 523(a)(5).” See 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). ... This, in turn, constituted an award in the nature of spousal support for the purposes of §§ 523(a)(5) and 101(14A).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance only of a judicial lien, so a judgment that has not created a lien on the debtor’s property cannot be avoided under the statute.

Hunsicker v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (In re Hunsicker) · filed 2017-01-12(f)(1)(A)

Debtor also argues that the potential for a lien or the inchoate lien status of the judgments does establish a lien subject to avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(a)(A). 11 U.S.C. § 101(36) defines judicial lien as a lien obtained by judgment, levy, sequestration, or other legal or equitable process or proceeding. A lien, which is an inchoate lien, is so because the lien is not presently enforceable. Stop 35, Inc. vs. Haines, 374 Pa.Super. 604, 543 A.2d 1133 (1988). The Debtor’s argument fails because, as referenced above, with no present ownership of real estate nor a writ of execution by a sheriff on the Debtor’s personal property, the entry of the judgment on the dockets of the court of common pleas in and of itself does not create a judgment lien subject to avoidability under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, and courts may not deny that relief based on equitable considerations absent a statutory basis.

Clabaugh v. Grant (In Re Grant) · filed 2016-09-20(f)(1)(A)

the bankruptcy court could not exercise its ... equitable powers to deny Mr. Grant’s § 522(f)(1)(A) avoidance motion because there is no statutory basis to do so.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) does not permit avoidance of a lien that secures a debt specified in § 523(a)(5).

In re Mason · filed 2017-06-27(f)(1)(A)

Accordingly, based on the plain terms of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), the Court denied the Motion’s request to avoid the fixing of KGG’s judicial lien on the Debtor’s residence pursuant to that section.

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of a judicial lien, but not a consensual lien arising from a promissory note and deed of trust.

Polk v. County of Contra Costa · filed 2017-07-03(f)

The bankruptcy court properly denied Polk’s motion to avoid the County’s lien because the County’s lien was consensual and arose from the promissory note and deed of trust, not a judicial lien that could be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor who properly claims an exemption to avoid a judicial lien that impairs that exemption, including a garnishment lien, to the extent necessary to preserve the exemption.

In re Lively · filed 2017-10-12(f)(1)(A)

As Lively properly claimed an exemption, he is entitled to avoid the Maitlands' lien and preserve his exemption.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judgment lien when the debtor satisfies the statute's lien-avoidance requirements.

Griffith v. Wells · filed 2018-08-21(f)

The bankruptcy court properly granted the debtor’s motion to avoid Griffith’s judgment lien because the debtor satisfied the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and the bankruptcy court’s factual finding regarding the fair market value of the debtor’s property was supported by evidence in the record.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption to which the debtor would otherwise have been entitled under state or federal law.

In re Shove · filed 2018-05-29(f)(1)

Under § 522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may avoid a judicial lien to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under state or federal law.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of qualifying judicial liens that impair a debtor's exemptions, but does not invalidate a statutory lien or the foreclosure judgment enforcing it.

Doss v. Norhardt Crossing Condo. Ass'n (In re Doss) · filed 2018-06-28(f)(1)

lien, and therefore section 522(f)(1) cannot invalidate that lien or the related foreclosure judgment.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on exempt property to the extent the debtor establishes the provision's other elements.

Wigger v. State Treasurer (In re Wigger) · filed 2019-04-16(f)(1)(A)

Accordingly, the Treasurer's interest in Mr. Wigger's IRA is a "judicial lien" which may be avoided to the extent Mr. Wigger establishes the other elements of § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f)(1) does not let a debtor avoid a judicial lien when the debtor’s property interest arose simultaneously with the lien, rather than preexisting it.

Potts v. Potts · filed 2020-01-29(f)(1)

The Court answered this question in the negative: The statute does not say that the debtor may undo a lien on an interest in property. Rather, the statute expressly states that the debtor may avoid “the fixing” of a lien on the debtor's interest in property. The gerund “fixing” refers to a temporal event. That [temporal] event—the fastening of a liability—presupposes an object onto which the liability can fasten. The statute defines this preexisting object as “an interest of the debtor in property.” Therefore, unless the debtor had the property interest to which the lien attached at some point before the lien attached to that interest, he or she cannot avoid the fixing of the lien under the terms of § 522(f)(1). ... Applying the foregoing analysis to the matter at hand, the Court reaches the following conclusion. First, the fact that the Property belonged solely to Chad prior to the marriage is not relevant. What matters is that it was owned by Chad and Catherine jointly and as tenants in the entirety at the time the divorce decree vested sole ownership in Chad while simultaneously creating a judicial lien in favor of Catherine. The scenario parallels that of Sanderfoot and its progeny, and the Court finds that case controlling. Consequently, Chad’s request that the judicial lien be avoided is denied.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on exempt property when the lien meets the statute’s impairment requirements.

Stephanie Lynn Garner · filed 2020-03-02(f)(1)(A)

There is no dispute that the property at issue here would be otherwise exempt. The question is whether the state court default judgment reforming the deed of trust to include debtor constitutes an avoidable judicial lien under the Bankruptcy Code. ... In sum, the Court agrees with the bankruptcy court that PennyMac’s lien on debtor’s interest in the property is a judicial lien. The lien was obtained through reformation, an equitable process. This falls squarely within the Code’s definition of “judicial lien.”

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, but does not permit avoidance of a statutory lien.

WOLLNER v. Spanish Hills Condominium Association · filed 2020-05-26(f)(1)(A)

Under § 522(f) a 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, if such lien is – (A) a judicial lien…” Defendant’s lien against Plaintiff’s Property is a statutory lien and not the type of lien that is subject to avoidance under § 522(f).

Section 522(f) permits a debtor entitled to an exemption to avoid a judicial lien that impairs the exemption.

Glastonbury Landowners Association v. O'Connell · filed 2020-09-23(f)

A debtor who is entitled to a homestead exemption may avoid liens on the property covered by the exemption. A debtor is entitled to “‘avoid a lien if... (1) there was a fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property; (2) such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled; and (3) such lien is a judicial lien.’”

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption; a lien created through the SCFRA court process is judicial rather than statutory.

State Treasurer v. Wigger · filed 2020-11-16(f)(1)(A)

In contrast, as noted by the bankruptcy court, nothing in the text of SCFRA indicates that it automatically creates a lien when “specified circumstances or conditions” are satisfied. Instead, the SCFRA provides a set of procedures that the state must follow in order to “secure reimbursement” for the state’s costs of incarceration. ... The court’s order at the end of that process converts the state’s claim into a lien on the specific assets identified by the court. Until that time, the prisoner’s property is unencumbered. ... Thus, the legal proceeding is what creates the lien, not the statute itself. The Treasurer’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on an exempt property interest when the lien impairs the exemption.

The City of Chicago v. Howard · filed 2021-01-29(f)(1)(A)

In sum, this Court finds that the liens the City obtained from immobilizing Appellees’ vehicles were based on Appellees’ prior final determinations of liabilities, which the Seventh Circuit has recognized as money judgments. Without the requisite number of judgments, the City would have no right to immobilize the vehicles and no liens could arise. For that reason, this Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Courts that the City’s liens on Appellees’ vehicles were judicial liens that could be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption.

The City of Chicago v. Mance · filed 2021-01-29(f)(1)(A)

In sum, this Court finds that the liens the City obtained from immobilizing Appellees’ vehicles were based on Appellees’ prior final determinations of liabilities, which the Seventh Circuit has recognized as money judgments. Without the requisite number of judgments, the City would have no right to immobilize the vehicles and no liens could arise. For that reason, this Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Courts that the City’s liens on Appellees’ vehicles were judicial liens that could be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A).