11 U.S.C. § 522

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption to which the debtor would otherwise be entitled, if the statutory elements are met.

Albarran v. Rivera · filed 2021-05-20(f)(1)(A)

With these standards in mind, we turn to § 522(f)(1)(A) which 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 § 522[(b)], if such lien is . . . a judicial lien . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A); see also Garran v. SMS Fin. V, LLC (In re Garran), 338 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2003). Applying this statutory language, the First Circuit has held that “a debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien if three requirements are met: (1) there was a fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property; (2) the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled; and (3) the lien is a judicial lien.”

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid the fixing of a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs an exemption, requiring the debtor to have an interest in the property and an entitlement to the exemption.

Dillon Hawk Laney and Emily Marie Laney · filed 2021-05-28(f)(1)

In order to avoid a lien under this provision, the statute identifies two fundamental requirements: (1) debtor has an interest in property, and (2) is entitled to an exemption. On the facts before the court, Debtor Emily Laney meets neither requirement.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and a lien arising from legal or administrative proceedings completed before the lien is created qualifies as a judicial lien.

Robert Daniel Cotton, Jr · filed 2021-11-16(f)(1)

Because the process outlined in the statutes occurs prior to the ability to issue the warrant on which the lien is predicated, the resulting lien arises from a “legal or equitable process or proceeding” within the meaning of the Code's definition of a judicial lien. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Lien is a judicial lien and is avoidable under § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only when it impairs an exemption to which the debtor—not a non-debtor spouse—would be entitled, and § 522(f)(2)(A) measures impairment using the debtor’s exemption and lien amounts.

Michael A Delong · filed 2021-11-22(f)(1) and (f)(2)(A)

In deciding this dispute, the Court looks to the language of the statute. The Bankruptcy Code provides in relevant part in § 522(f) 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, if such lien is … a judicial lien … [A] lien shall be considered to impair an exemption to the extent that the sum of ... (i) the lien; (ii) all other liens on the property; and (iii) the amount of the exemption that the debtor could claim if there were no liens on the property …” 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) and (2) (emphasis added). The Bankruptcy Code does not provide for the avoidance of a lien as impairing an exemption to which the non-debtor’s spouse would have been or is entitled. Thus, the plain language of the statute precludes the Debtor from including any homestead exemption of his wife in the lien avoidance analysis.

Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien, while a statutory lien is not avoidable under that provision.

City of Chicago v. Mance · filed 2022-04-21(f)

Vehicle owners who incur liens like Mance’s therefore face judicial liens and can avoid them under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). Vehicle owners whose violations resulted in immediate impoundment, by contrast, face statutory liens and cannot avoid them under the same provision.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when it impairs an exemption, measured by the statutory formula in § 522(f)(2)(A).

Felicito Antonio and Purisima Antonio · filed 2022-05-31(f)(2)(A)

The debtor must show that the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under section 522(b).1 11 U.S.C. § 522(f); Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 310 (1991). The debtor’s exemption is considered impaired to the extent that the sum of the judicial lien, all other liens on the property, and the amount of the exemption that the debtor could claim if there were no liens on the property exceeds 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).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid only a judicial lien that impairs an exemption; it does not allow avoidance of a consensual mortgage lien.

Disen v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2022-05-31(f)(1)(A)

Section 522(f)(1)(A) may be used to avoid only judicial liens. As defined by the Bankruptcy Code, a “judicial lien” is a “lien obtained by judgment, levy, sequestration, or other legal or equitable process or proceeding.” 11 U.S.C. §101(36). A consensual mortgage lien 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 that fixes on the debtor’s property and impairs an otherwise available exemption, with impairment measured under the formula in § 522(f)(2)(A).

Charles Thomas Huth · filed 2022-06-10(f)(1), (f)(2)(A)

With respect to the “purchase money equitable lien” against the Hilliard Property set forth in the Judgment, the Court concludes that the first requirement of § 522(f)(1) cannot be established by Huth, because this lien is not a “judicial lien” under the Bankruptcy Code. With respect to the separate lien created by the Abstract of Judgment recorded against the Hilliard Property, the Court concludes that all three requirements of § 522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code have been satisfied and the Abstract of Judgment lien should be avoided. ... Section 522(f)(2)(A) sets forth a mathematical formula to determine the extent that a judicial lien may impair an exemption.

Section 522(f)(1) does not permit a debtor to avoid a lien unless the debtor possessed the property interest to which the lien attached before the lien attached.

Lunn v. Lunn · filed 2022-06-21(f)(1)

Applying Sanderfoot and § 5/503(e) to the case at bar, a species of common ownership in the parties’ marital property was created pursuant to § 5/503(e) when the divorce petition was filed on September 12, 2016. This common ownership interest remained until the entry of the August 16, 2019 judgment establishing the parties’ property interests—the same judgment which simultaneously created the judicial lien securing the Defendant’s equity award. Like the defendant in Sanderfoot, the Debtor in this case took any property interest that he received pursuant to the August 16, 2019 judgment subject to the Defendant’s lien. Hence, the Debtor did not possess a pre-existing interest to which the lien could fix, and, therefore, the Defendant’s lien is immune to the Debtor’s challenge under § 522(f)(1).

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

Charlie Frank Martin and Misty Dawn Martin · filed 2022-07-19(f)(1)(A)

There is no question that the three hospital liens which are the subject of this dispute are statutory liens which may not be avoided under § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only to the extent that it impairs an exemption, and the exemption is unavailable for property acquired after the petition date because that property was not part of the bankruptcy estate.

Emile Barrak · filed 2022-07-26(f)(1)(A)

The statute governing lien avoidance, § 522(f)(1)(A), provides in relevant part: “[T]he 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 judicial lien.” ... Because the Debtor did not own the Property as of the Petition Date, he is not entitled to claim an exemption in the Property, and is therefore not entitled to avoid the Judgment Lien against the Property on the ground that the Judgment Lien impairs his exemption.

Section 522(f) does not permit avoidance of an attorney’s charging lien that arises by operation of law before judicial proceedings, because it is not a judicial lien.

Santangelo v. Clarvit · filed 2022-08-04(f)

Additionally, a valid and enforceable charging lien is not avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) because it is not a “judicial lien” since it arises “by operation of law in advance of judicial proceedings and thus is not ‘obtained by judgment’ as required for a judicial lien pursuant to [11 U.S.C.] § 101(31).”

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien when the lien, other liens, and the debtor's available exemption exceed the value of the debtor's interest without liens, using the petition-date value.

Smith v. Kleynerman · filed 2022-09-30(f)(2)(A)

In other words, avoidance of a judgment lien is available only if the sum of that judgment lien and the exemption amount (here, $15,000) exceeds the value of the property that the lien attaches to. Furthermore, the date of valuation of an asset for purposes of determining whether it can be exempted is the date on which the petition for bankruptcy was filed.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of a judicial lien, but instruments that are not judicial liens—including a consent order, an order discharging a debtor-filed lis pendens, and a recorded platting document—cannot be avoided under it.

Gregory Brian Myers · filed 2023-01-20(f)(1)

This Court denied Debtor’s motion to avoid the “lien” on the grounds that the Consent Order did not create a judicial lien that was subject to avoidance under § 522(f)(1). ... At the January 19 hearing, the Court denied Debtor’s motion because a court order discharging a lis pendens filed by the debtor in a lawsuit that he initiated is not a judicial lien under § 522(f). The Court further finds that Debtor’s motion was frivolous. ... At the January 19 hearing, this Court denied Debtor’s motion because the recording of a platting document is not a “judicial lien” under § 522(f). The Court further finds that Debtor’s motion was frivolous.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien despite nondischargeability of the underlying debt, except when the lien secures a debt of a kind specified in § 523(a)(5).

Phyllix Mantilla Means Stovall and Ray Cameron Stovall · filed 2023-09-21(f)(1)(A)

All three relied on equitable principles based on facts specific to those cases that the Court finds both inapplicable to the facts of this case and, more important, unable to overcome the statutory language of section 522(f)(1) establishing that the only category of judicial liens that cannot be avoided due to the nondischargeability of the underlying debt are those that “secure[] a debt of a kind that is specified in section 523(a)(5).”

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, and section 522(f)(2)(C) does not protect a deficiency judgment because it is not a judgment arising out of a mortgage foreclosure.

Nicholas J. Gramigna, Jr. · filed 2024-12-20(f)(1), (f)(2)(C)

Upon review and consideration of these decisions, and aside from the impact of applicable state law, the Court holds that a deficiency judgment is not a judgment arising out of a mortgage foreclosure. Therefore, the Court concludes that a deficiency judgment is a judicial lien that can be avoided under section 522(f)(1) and does not fall within the exception to avoidance under section 522(f)(2)(C).

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption even when the lien was recorded post-petition and secures a nondischargeable prepetition debt, subject to the statute’s exceptions.

ADELL D. PORTCH · filed 2025-02-05(c) and (f)

Section 522(f) does not distinguish between pre- or post-bankruptcy judgment liens. Nor does this statute speak to the timing of liens recorded against an exempt homestead. §522(f) does not preclude avoidance of a lien recorded against a debtor’s homestead after their bankruptcy was filed, at least until the underlying bankruptcy case is closed. Here, the Debtor’s case is not and has not been closed. This Court finds that, under § 522(f), Debtor’s homestead exemption protects her equity in the Property against Kush’s post-Petition Date Nondischargeable Lien.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption notwithstanding a prepetition waiver of that exemption, using the exemption amount the debtor would have had but for the lien.

Dennis J Romo and Darya Romo · filed 2025-02-27(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1) specifically authorizes lien avoidance “[n]otwithstanding any waiver” of the homestead exemption. Under this provision, the Debtors are not precluded from avoiding NMCT’s Judicial Lien even though they waived the homestead exemption by failing to assert it in the in the Foreclosure Action as required under New Mexico law.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid the fixing of a judicial lien to the extent that it impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under § 522(b), but entitlement to an exemption and entitlement to avoid a lien are separate inquiries.

Shara L. Bras · filed 2025-04-22(f)(1)

“However, even if debtors are entitled to exempt property under § 522(l), they are not automatically entitled to avoid a lien on the exempt property.” ... “Debtors must prove that they are entitled to lien avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).” ... Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions ... 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, if such lien is—(A) a judicial lien. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f) allows avoidance of a judgment lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and the court required the debtor to use a motion complying with LBR 4003-1 rather than a non-standard Chapter 13 plan provision.

James Stacey Conley and Angela Marie Conley · filed 2025-07-07(f)

The Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for avoiding a judgment lien to the extent it impairs an exemption to which the Debtor would have been entitled. 11 U.S.C. §522(f). ... The Debtors did not file a motion to avoid Pen Air’s Judgment lien but instead included a statement in a non-standard provision of their Chapter 13 plan. Such statement did not comply with LBR 4003-1. ... To be clear, this Court holds that any attempt to avoid a lien through the use of a non-standard provision in a Chapter 13 Plan is ineffective.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, while § 522(c)(2)(B) preserves tax liens against property from discharge.

Mock v. United States · filed 2025-07-29(f)(1)(A); (c)(2)(B)

And although the code offers debtors an opportunity to avoid “the fixing of a [judicial] lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor” is entitled, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), Mock did not assert an exemption or seek an avoidance for the Property. ... And critically, the Bankruptcy Code explicitly exempts tax liens against the debtor’s property from discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B). The United States’ federal tax liens against Property therefore remained unaffected by the bankruptcy discharge.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, and the impairment calculation applies only to the debtor’s interest in the property.

Michael L Watson · filed 2025-12-18(f)(1)(A)

The order Hospodka seeks to alter or amend avoided Hospodka’s lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), as impairing the debtor’s homestead exemption. ... A 50% interest is the correct number for the impairment calculation. ... He sought to avoid a lien on his 50% interest and the lien was avoided on this interest only. ... Hospodka’s lien also remains against any undisclosed interest of the debtor to the extent such interest exists.

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

Vang · filed 2026-03-31(f)(1)(A)

The parties mention 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) in their briefing. (ECF 42 at 3; ECF 48 at 9-10.) That section allows a debtor to “avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption” if the lien is a judicial lien. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). Debtors may exercise this right to avoid a judicial lien regardless of whether the underlying debt is nondischargeable. ... The Debtors have not brought a motion to exercise their rights under § 522(f). Unless and until they do, they should not have to defend a claim regarding the Lee Parties’ secured status.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid the fixing of a judicial lien on an interest in property, except for a lien securing a domestic-support obligation, to the extent the lien impairs an exemption.

Robert Keith Monroe · filed 2026-05-19(f)(1)

A debtor is only permitted to avoid the fixing of a lien on his or her interest in “property” if such lien is characterized as a judicial lien, subject to a narrow exception for judicial liens securing a debt specified in Section 523(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). ... Here, Debtor did file Motions to Avoid Liens; however, Debtor’s filings were incomplete, as evident through Debtor’s failure to provide information as to the extent to which JBPI, LLC and the Nichols’ judicial liens on the Mattis Road Property impaired the exemptions to which Debtor claims he is entitled. Because Debtor did not complete Local Form 56 when filing Motions to Avoid Liens, the Court cannot permit Debtor to avoid the judicial liens on the Mattis Road Property.

Section 522(f)(1) provides no basis to avoid a judgment when it creates no judicial lien on the debtor’s exempt property.

Keane v. United Guaranty Indemnity Co. (In re Keane) · filed 1980-12-23(f)(1)

Since no grounds exist under Iowa law upon which a lien may fix on a property interest of the Plaintiffs such that an exemption to which the Debtors are entitled may be impaired, the Court finds no basis upon which the Plaintiffs’ Complaint to Avoid the Fixing of a Lien pursuant to Section 522(f) may be granted.

Section 522(f)(1)'s avoidance of judicial liens is not limited to liens arising after its enactment.

In Re Charles E. Ashe and Susan J. Ashe T/a C & S Fuel Service, Debtors · 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) permits a debtor to avoid a judgment lien on foreclosure proceeds when it impairs a properly claimed homestead exemption in those proceeds.

Webb v. Robert A. Boroughs, Ltd. (In Re Webb) · filed 1984-04-17(f)(1)

With the above in mind, it appears clear that the debtor has an interest in the $8,000.00 held by the trustee under the foreclosed deed of trust, that the exemption claimed by the debtor is an exemption available to him and has been properly claimed, that Boroughs has a judgment lien which for purposes of § 522(f) is a “judicial lien”, and that said lien impairs the debtors’ properly claimed exemption in the $8,000.00 in that if Boroughs lien did not otherwise exist the debtors would have a right to the $8,000.00 unencumbered by any lien.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, subject to the rule that it does not destroy pre-enactment property rights.

In Re Scarpa · filed 1986-04-17(f)(1)

By analogy and by the direct application of the Supreme Court’s language concerning the entire subsection, other Courts have applied the same analysis to § 522(f)(1) and have determined that pre-enactment property rights may not be destroyed under this subsection. ... Based on the authority of Security Industrial Bank and the fact that Mr. Bly’s judicial lien was perfected prior to the enactment date of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, it is ordered that the debtors’ motion to avoid the Bly lien is denied.

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

In Re Ramsey · filed 1988-07-27(f)(1)

Case law has been consistent with this congressional intent and construes mechanics’ liens as “statutory liens” and not avoidable under Section 522(f). ... For the foregoing reasons it is hereby ORDERED that debtor’s motion to avoid respondent’s mechanics’ lien is DENIED.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien on real property when the lien impairs an exemption.

Wood v. Godfrey (In Re Godfrey) · filed 1989-08-15(f)(1)

Therefore Mrs Wood’s judicial lien was avoidable under § 522(f)(1).

Section 522 permits a judicial lien on the nonexempt value of homestead property to survive bankruptcy.

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Pedersen · filed 1994-12-05(c), (f)

This distinction is important because the bankruptcy code provides that a judicial lien on nonexempt property, or the nonexempt portion of exempt property, survives bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 522(c), (f).

Section 522(f) does not permit a debtor to avoid a child support lien.

In re Kellander · filed 2001-06-01(f)

The evidence in the record supports the bankruptcy court’s findings that the § 522(f) motion to avoid the child support lien was frivolous and filed for an improper purpose.

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

In Re Taylor · filed 2002-06-03(f)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 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, if such lien is — (A) a judicial lien .... ”

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a lien on exempt property when the lien is judicial, fixes on the debtor’s property interest, and impairs an exemption; a lien fixing simultaneously with acquisition of the interest cannot be avoided.

Herman v. Neely (In Re Herman) · filed 2004-03-09(f)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a lien on exempt property if that debtor can show that “(1) the lien is a judicial lien; (2) the lien is fixed against an interest of the debtor in property; (3) and the lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would otherwise be entitled.” ... Consequently, because the Debtor acquired her fee simple interest in the property simultaneously with the “fixing” of the liens on the property, the Debtor cannot avoid the liens under § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien impairing an exemption only when the debtor held an interest in the property before the lien attached.

In Re White · filed 2009-07-09(f)(1)(A)

However, the United States Supreme Court has determined that a debtor may not avoid a judicial lien awarded as part of a divorce decree pursuant to § 522(f)(1)(A) unless the debtor’s interest in the property existed before the lien was fixed to the property. ... Therefore, because the Debtor did not have an existing interest in the Pompton Drive home before the lien attached, Claim 8 is properly secured.

Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, with impairment calculated under § 522(f)(2)(A).

In Re Ford · filed 2009-04-20(f)(2)(A)

The burden is on Debtor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the elements required to avoid a lien under Code section 522(f).

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

Losieniecki v. Thrift Consumer Discount Co. (In Re Losieniecki) · filed 1981-12-31(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1) gives the Debtors the power to avoid judicial liens to the extent they impair the exemption; i.e., to divest that amount of equity ownership from the lien holders in favor of the estate.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under § 522(b), without a time limit imposed by the Bankruptcy Code.

Modern Supply Co. v. Lee (In Re Lee) · filed 1982-06-30(f)(1)

In summary, the Court finds that neither the Bankruptcy Code, the Interim Rules, nor any local rule imposes a time limit for the filing of complaints to avoid liens under § 522(f). The debtors may therefore avoid the judicial liens of the plaintiff, Modern Supply Company, insofar as those liens impair an exemption to which they would have been entitled under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b).

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien after discharge when equitable considerations do not dictate otherwise.

In Re Hall · filed 1982-08-25(f)

Section 522(f) itself does not provide for any limitation of time within which a judicial lien may be avoided.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of judicial liens impairing exemptions but does not apply to statutory federal tax liens.

Zerger v. Wilmeth (In Re Zerger) · filed 1983-10-26(f)(1)

This Court finds that valid federal tax liens do not come within the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) and do not constitute judicial liens avoidable by that section.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid certain liens on exempt property without an arbitrary time limit for exercising that right.

In Re Jent · filed 1984-03-08(f)

Therefore, we must reject the rationale earlier expressed in Coomes, supra, and will no longer require an “excuse” from the debtor for tardy § 522(f) motions.

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

In Re Love · filed 1984-09-20(f)(1)

Whether 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) requires the complete cancellation of a judicial lien which impairs an exemption depends upon the nature and extent of the exemptions impaired.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid judicial liens to the extent they impair an exemption, subject to any voluntary impairment of that exemption.

In Re Grosso · filed 1984-10-25(f)(1)

Thus, it is the holding of this Court that the judicial liens of Conagra, Inc., Albuquerque Publishing Company, Sunwest Bank and Karler Packing Company may be avoided to the extent that they impair the debtor’s exemption, and the debtor will be entitled to his exemption except to the extent that he has voluntarily impaired it.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, while leaving a mortgage unaffected.

In Re Mancuso · filed 1985-01-10(f)(1)

I think the Brown case simply holds that if the proceeds of a sale are sufficient to pay a mortgage or a part of a mortgage which follows a judgment, that payment cannot be reduced by the debtor exercising his right of lien avoidance under § 522(f)(1). It does not prohibit a debtor from obtaining his exemption from a judgment that is in front of a mortgage. Nor does it preclude the payment of the balance of that judgment if it exceeds the exemption.

Section 522(d)(1) exempts qualifying equity in a residence and its sale proceeds, while § 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid judicial liens that impair that exemption.

In Re Sajkowski · filed 1985-04-12(d)(1), (f)(1)

Regardless of the fact that the debtor’s residence was liquidated and reduced to cash prior to the filing of the motion to avoid liens, he still retains a sufficient equitable interest in the proceeds to qualify for the § 522(d)(1) exemption. ... We hold, therefore, that where the equity does not exceed the $7,500 exemption, a debtor may avoid all constitutionally avoidable judicial liens, regardless of the total amount, to the extent that any lien remaining on the property would reduce the amount available for exemption.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a lien on property to the extent it impairs an exemption, if the lien is a judicial lien.

In Re Maus · filed 1985-05-06(f)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 522 states in pertinent part as follows: ... “(f) Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions, 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, if such lien is— (1) a judicial lien;” ... This Court is compelled to find that the lien herein is not one that can be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) for the reasons hereinafter set out.

Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs an exemption available under section 522(b).

National Deposit Guarantee Corp. v. Peck (In Re Peck) · filed 1985-12-05(f)

The explicit language of Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2329.66(A) makes clear that absent an attachment or other involuntary disposition of the debtor’s property, the debtor’s exemption is not impaired. Therefore, absent a forced sale or other form of execution against the debt- or’s property, section 522(f) can not be utilized by the debtor to avoid the judgment liens by appellant National Guarantee. The lien does not impair an exemption to which he would otherwise be entitled under section 522(b).

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

Anderson v. Dayton Plumbing Supply Co. (In Re Anderson) · filed 1986-02-18(f)(1)

In this instance, both Ohio law, § 2329.661 and the Bankruptcy Code § 522(f)(1) provide for the avoidance of judicial liens, which can be accomplished as part of a Chapter 13 case.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only when it impairs an exemption available under § 522(b).

In Re Wooten · filed 1986-09-05(f)(1)

The invocation of Section 522(f)(1) is contingent upon whether the debtor was entitled to an exemption under Section 522(b). As previously discussed in this opinion, Iowa state law determines the exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(A), and this debtor is not entitled to an exemption under the Iowa exemption provisions because the debt involved was contracted before the acquisition of the homestead. ... It follows that Mr. Wooten could not avail himself of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) to avoid the Central Iowa Production Credit Association’s lien, should it procure one in the state courts.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien only when it impairs an exemption to which the debtor would be entitled under § 522(b).

Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Ellingson (In Re Ellingson) · filed 1986-09-30(f)(1)

The invocation of Section 522(f)(1) in this case is contingent upon whether the Ellingsons were entitled to an exemption under Section 522(b). As previously discussed in this opinion, Iowa has opted out of the federal exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), Iowa exemptions apply, and under that Iowa law the Ellingsons are not entitled to a homestead exemption right as against the plaintiff’s antecedent debt. Iowa Code §§ 561.16, 561.21. It follows that the Ellingsons could not avail themselves of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) to avoid the Bank’s lien, should the Bank procure one in the state courts.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid judicial liens but does not permit avoidance of statutory tax liens.

In Re Audey · filed 1986-10-09(f)

It is also true that statutory tax liens are not judicial liens and may not be avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). ... The liens of Michael Strieb of 1983-2407 and the Windber High Standard Coal Company lien of 1984-591 are avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and claimed by the Debtor as an exemption pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 551.

Section 522(b) lets debtors choose federal exemptions, and § 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs a federal exemption.

In Re Paul · filed 1986-11-20(b)(2)(B), (f)(1)

Under U.S.C. § 522(b) the Debtors had the choice of claiming either (i) the exemptions granted by that section or (ii) any other exemption granted by federal or state law plus “any interests in property which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to the extent that such interests as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B). In their schedules filed with the Court, the Debtors chose the federal exemptions granted by § 522. ... Mrs. Paul’s only recourse, therefore, is under the federal exemption granted by § 522(f)(1), which allows her to avoid judicial liens to the extent that they impair her federal exemption. ... Ajayem’s attachment, therefore, is still valid to the extent it does not impair the exemption of Mrs. Paul.

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

West v. West (In Re West) · filed 1986-12-22(f)(1)

I therefore conclude that pursuant to section 522(f)(1) the West Lien is avoided in the amount of $1,525.

A debtor who treats a secured creditor outside a Chapter 13 plan must forgo using § 522(f)(1) to affect that creditor’s liens.

In Re Waldman · filed 1987-08-05(f)(1)

Similarly, we shall condition our result here on the Debtor’s refraining from modifying the rights of Gershman under 11 U.S.C. §§ 502, 506, or § 522(f)(1), or in any other way otherwise permissible under the Code. Therefore, what we are holding, in essence, is that, when a debtor opts to deal with a creditor “outside the Plan” and, thus, as if the bankruptcy never existed as to that creditor, the debtor must forebear use of the Code to affect the rights of the secured creditor in any other way.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, while leaving the remainder of the lien secured.

Windfelder v. Rosen (In Re Windfelder) · filed 1988-02-08(f)(1)

The heart of this dispute is the debtor’s motion to avoid the judicial lien held by Mr. Rosen. ... The result of this analysis is as follows: Mr. Rosen’s judicial lien is avoided except in the amount of $3,800.86.

Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien on garnished wages before a state court orders the employer to pay the wages to the judgment creditor.

Miller v. Hulvey (In Re Hulvey) · filed 1988-05-24(f)

It is well-settled in this district that a debtor may avoid a lien on garnished wages until the state court enters an order directing the employer to pay the wages to the judgment creditor. ... The Plaintiffs contend, however, that the Defendant should not be allowed to avoid the lien because this debt is nondischargeable. This Court does not agree. ... 2. The judicial lien of the Plaintiffs is VOIDED pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f) and the Plaintiffs are directed to turn over the garnished wages in the sum of $471.56 to the Defendant.

Section 522(f)(1) does not allow a debtor to avoid an equitable lien arising when the debtor buys property with another person’s funds, even if the lien is later reduced to and recorded as a judgment.

Herman v. Whitacre (In Re Herman) · filed 1989-01-27(f)(1)

The Court finds that Ms. Whitacre simultaneously obtained an equitable lien on the Debtors’ residence when the Debtors purchased the Sexton Avenue property. Because “equitable liens are common law liens and not judicial liens, they may not be avoided under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(f).” ... The Court also finds that subsequent judgment and recordation of that judgment will not serve to transform an equitable lien into an avoidable judicial lien.

Section 522(f)(1) permits avoidance of judicial liens that impair exemptions, but does not permit avoidance of statutory liens.

In Re Whitford · filed 1989-07-13(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1), on its face, permits the avoidance of judicial liens rather than statutory liens.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien impairing a state law homestead exemption.

Robinson v. Robinson (In Re Robinson) · filed 1990-03-06(f)(1)

While in the State of Colorado, exemptions to the bankruptcy state are governed by state law, the availability of lien avoidance provisions is governed by federal law. In this case, it makes little sense to deny the debtors access to the § 522(f)(1) lien avoidance provisions because of the vagaries of Colorado law under which a judicial lien does not attach to homesteaded property. To do so would deny the intent of the Bankruptcy Code in providing the debtors a fresh start and would leave debtors and creditors in limbo as to the status of judicial liens post-bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court’s decision is reversed.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien when it impairs a homestead exemption.

Rhoads v. Jordan (In Re Rhoads) · filed 1991-07-25(f)(1)

Rhoads’ motion for summary judgment on the § 522(f) cause of action of the adversary complaint is hereby granted because the Jordan lien impairs Rhoads’ homestead exemption in the Property.

Section 522(f)(1) does not let a debtor avoid a judicial lien that attached before or simultaneously with the debtor’s acquisition of the property interest.

Matter of MacKe · filed 1992-01-13(f)(1)

Thus, this court concludes Ms. Macke’s lien attached to the property at issue prior to or simultaneously to the time at which the debtor received his interest. Put another way, the debtor never possessed the fee simple interest he holds without the judicial lien. Consequently, the lien is not avoidable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judgment lien that impairs an exemption, but not a voluntarily granted mortgage.

In Re Sweeting · filed 1992-03-23(f)(1)

Section 522(f)(1) allows the avoidance of judgment liens, not mortgages voluntarily granted.

Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid a lien only when it impairs an exemption the debtor could otherwise claim.

Arango v. Third National Bank in Nashville (In re Arango) · filed 1992-06-29(f)

As this Court understands the Owen decision, it allows a debtor to avoid a lien on property which the debtor could otherwise claim as exempt (in that case homestead property). But in this case, Mr. Arango seeks to avoid a lien on a survivor-ship interest in entireties property which he would not be entitled to exempt, with or without the lien.

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

In Re Mason · filed 1993-04-05(f)

Before the Court is the Debtor’s ... Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien on garnished wages ... pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), and the Objection of creditor G.E. Capital Corporation (“G.E. Capital”). ... Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Debtor’s Motion to Avoid Lien as to th¿ $663.43 garnished between August and November 1992, is GRANTED, and G.E. Capital is ORDERED to return forthwith the disputed funds to the Debtor.

Section 522(f)(1) lets a debtor avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption, subject to limits when the lien predates the debtor’s interest.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Garcia (In Re Garcia) · filed 1993-05-21(f)(1)

We observe at the outset that § 522(f)(1) is designed to protect a bankrupt debtor’s entitlement to all of his exemptions, even in the event that a creditor beats him to the courthouse and obtains a lien on property that would otherwise be exempt. § ... 522(f)(1), however, does not permit a debtor to avoid liens which attached before the debtor ever acquired an interest in the property.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien fixed on a homestead when the lien clouds title and impairs the exemption, even though the lien is unenforceable while the property remains a homestead.

Matter of Henderson · filed 1994-04-19(f)(1)

We believe that the plain language of § 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a lien only when the judicial lien fastens a liability to and impairs the debtor's exempt property. ... While we recognize that the Hendersons' homestead is not "legally impaired," the Tarrant County case has demonstrated to us that Belknap's judicial lien does impair the Hendersons' homestead exemption in a very real and practical sense.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien fixed against the debtor’s property when it impairs an exemption.

In the Matter of E.C. Henderson and Phyllis Henderson, Debtors. E.C. Henderson and Phyllis Henderson v. Belknap · filed 1994-04-20(f)(1)

In order for a debtor to avoid a hen on exempt property under § 522(f)(1), a debtor must show: (1) that the hen is a judicial lien; (2) that the hen is fixed against an interest of the debtor in property; and (3) that the hen impairs an exemption to which the debtor would otherwise be entitled.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a lien that impairs an exemption only if the lien is judicial.

In re Howard · filed 1994-08-18(f)(1)

Thus, the Debtor in this case can only avoid the lien of STRB if it can be defined as a judicial lien in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). ... In the case at bar, the Debtor failed to demonstrate that the lien of STRB qualifies as a judicial lien. Therefore, the option of lien avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) is not available to the Debtor under the circumstances of this case.

Section 522(f) permits a debtor to avoid judicial liens that impair a homestead exemption.

In Re Hsia · filed 1995-06-08(f)

If we find that it is impaired, we must then hold that the judicial liens are avoided pursuant to Section 522(f). ... The court concludes that the judicial liens would impair and totally diminish the equity of debtor. Accordingly, the judicial liens are avoided.

Under the pre-1994 version of § 522(f)(1), a debtor could avoid a judicial lien only up to the lesser of the debtor's equity or homestead exemption.

Party Parrot v. BIRTHDAYS & HOL. · filed 1996-03-29(f)(1)

Under In re Menell, supra , defendant would have been entitled to avoid $7500 of the judicial lien, i.e., the amount of his homestead exemption, since his equity in the property after considering the unavoidable liens was greater than his allowable $7500 exemption. He would not, however, have been entitled to avoid plaintiff's lien in its entirety.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that clouds title to an exempt homestead and impairs the debtor’s use of it, even when state law prevents the lien from attaching to the homestead.

In Re Kellar · filed 1996-12-05(f)(1)(A)

The Court believes under these circumstances that an impairment of the homestead exemption exists within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code because it, in fact, impairs the debtors’ fresh start afforded by the Bankruptcy Code. Impairment must be construed consistent with the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a fresh start. Section 522(f) exists to preserve that purpose: it protects the exemptions by permitting the debtor to avoid certain liens on exempt property.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs a homestead exemption even if the lien predates the property’s exempt status.

In Re Wilbur · filed 1998-01-20(f)(1)

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s holding in Owen that Florida’s exclusion of pre-existing liens from the homestead exemption does not exclude those same liens from the lien avoidance statute, the Court holds that the debtor may utilize § 522(f) to avoid the lien on his home in Ponte Vedra.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) does not let a debtor avoid a judicial lien securing guardian ad litem fees treated as child support absent a contrary judicial determination.

Nevettie v. Doering (In Re Nevettie) · filed 1998-03-10(f)(1)(A)

However, a debtor may not avoid a judicial hen that secures a debt for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of a spouse or a child of a debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(l)(A)(i), (ii). Unless there is a judicial determination to the contrary, an award of fees to a Guardian Ad Litem is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support. ... Therefore, this Debtor may not avoid the judicial hen of this Creditor.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that attached to a community property interest before the debtor acquired sole ownership.

Law Offices of Moore & Moore v. Stoneking (In Re Stoneking) · filed 1998-09-24(f)(1)

If a debtor could have avoided such a lien on community-held real property pursuant to section 522(f)(1) before acquiring sole ownership of the property, that debtor should not lose the right to avoid that same lien after acquiring sole ownership.

Section 522(f)(1) does not allow a debtor to avoid a Florida attorney’s charging lien that relates back to the start of the attorney’s services, because it is not a judicial lien.

Weed v. Washington (In Re Washington) · filed 1999-09-16(f)(1)

Given the legislative purpose of section 522(f)(1) as set forth in Fischer, this Court holds that the attorney’s charging lien in this case is not a “judicial lien”, and is thus not avoidable under section 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien that impairs a debtor’s homestead exemption, while a separate statutory construction lien remains unaffected.

In Re Harpole · filed 2001-03-23(f)(1)(A)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), Pierce’s judicial lien of $6,436.77 impairs Debtors’ homestead exemption of $60,000.00. ... The construction lien, not being a judicial lien, but being a statutory lien, cannot be avoid under § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption even if the debtor voluntarily consented to the lien.

Kevin F. v. Erickson (In re Kevin F.) · filed 2001-10-30(f)(1)(A)

On its face, this Section applies to any judicial lien, whether voluntary or not, and it is not for the Court to exclude consensual or voluntary judicial liens from Section 522(f)(1)(A) when Congress did not do so.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien created by a wage levy when the wages remain with the employer at filing and the lien impairs an exemption.

In Re McGovern · filed 2003-06-11(f)(1)(A)

On August 3, 2002, the date of the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, First Select, Inc., held a judicial lien within the scope of 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(32) and 522(f)(1)(A) against the sum of $452.09, then in the possession of the State of Minnesota as the Debtor’s employer, under a prior levy of execution in favor of First Select, Inc.

Section 522(f) lien avoidance may be barred by laches when the debtor’s delay prejudices the lienholder; delay alone generally does not suffice.

In Re Bradley · filed 2007-05-23(f)(1)

In the context of a Section 522(f) motion, the passage of time, without more, is not usually sufficient to invoke the equitable doctrine of laches. ... In this case, the Court believes the doctrine of laches applies due to the prejudice that would result to UCFU.

Section 522(f)(1) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien to the extent it impairs an exemption, while the lien remains secured against nonexempt value.

In Re Mootosammy · filed 2008-03-31(f)(1)

Pursuant to Section 522(f), the debtors may avoid the lien to the extent that it impairs their otherwise exempt property. ... Rather, the debtors can exempt $6,000 from the total value of the truck ($10,825), leaving $4,825, not $2,399.28, subject to LWT’s original lien of $8,399.28.

Section 522(f)(1) does not permit a debtor to avoid a statutory lien or a lien that attached only to another person’s interest before the debtor acquired it.

In Re Scott · filed 2009-03-04(f)(1)

The debtor’s motion to avoid the Ferguson Case FLARPL is DENIED on two separate bases: first, the FLARPL is a statutory lien and not avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1); and second, because the debtor here did not possess the interest being attached at the time the FLARPL fixed (which fixed only on Mrs. Scott’s community property interest in the residence), the fixing was not on the debt- or’s interest.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid an impairing judicial lien even if the lien attached after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Rosenberg v. Corio · filed 2010-03-24(f)(1)(A)

Thus, the Coxios were entitled to claim an exemption in their home under § 522(b) and seek to avoid the lien on that property under § 522(f). In any event, the Rosen-bergs have cited no authority — and we are aware of none — -holding that only a judicial lien that exists as of the filing date can be avoided under § 522(f).

Section 522(f)(2)(A) permits avoidance of a judicial lien only to the extent it impairs the debtor’s exemption.

In re Hettinger · filed 2011-12-09(f)(2)(A)

As stated above, the language of the § 522(f)(2)(A) authorizes avoidance of judicial liens only to the extent that those liens impair an exemption.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of a county’s judicial lien securing a building-code fine because the lien does not secure a domestic support obligation.

In re Pavlovic · filed 2012-07-10(f)(1)(A)

While the lien in issue here clearly is a judicial lien, it is not related to a domestic support obligation. The text of the provision by its terms therefore clearly permits avoidance of the County’s lien.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs a homestead exemption even when the judgment was recorded before the debtor acquired the property.

In re Anderson · filed 2013-07-26(f)(1)(A)

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the arguments of counsel and the relevant cases, the court holds that the debtors may avoid the judgment held by the Bank that affects property purchased after the judgment was recorded in which the debtors claim a homestead exemption.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption even if the lien enforces an underlying homeowners’ assessment lien.

In re Coy · filed 2016-06-23(f)(1)

The liens sought to be avoided are “judicial liens,” despite whether they were seeking to enforce homeowners’ assessments. Therefore, the Code allows these judicial liens to be avoided.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits a debtor to avoid an unenforceable judicial lien that impairs an exemption, including a lien that clouds title.

CRP Holdings A-1, LLC v. O'Sullivan (In Re O'Sullivan) · filed 2019-02-01(f)(1)(A)

As a result, we hold that application of § 522(f) will clear the cloud on title to O’Sullivan’s property and, as a result, the bankruptcy court properly granted O’Sullivan’s motion to avoid the lien.

Section 522(f)(1)(A) permits avoidance of judicial liens that impair an exemption, but does not permit avoidance of statutory tax liens.

Scott P Scherer and Vicki L. Scherer · filed 2022-02-22(f)(1)(A)

There is no dispute that the tax liens were not avoidable under § 522(f); indeed, the Debtors conceded at the December 15, 2021 hearing that they were not entitled to the relief requested at the time they filed their motion in 2012.

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

COOPER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. VS. J & JAY ELECTRIC, INC. (L-4401-09, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2020-09-11(f)(2)(A)

As Cooper Electric's lien was subject to avoidance under section 522(f), it was "subject to be discharged" under N.J.S.A. 2A:16-49.1.

Section 522(m)'s separate application to each debtor does not let one joint owner claim the entire state homestead exemption when that exemption attaches to the property itself.

In Re Pruitt · filed 1987-09-23(m)

He postulates that since 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(m) requires the Sec. 522 exemptions to be applied "separately with respect to each debtor," perforce he is entitled to claim the value of the homestead as an exemption upon his interest in the jointly held property. That approach simply ignores the basic nature of the homestead and its attachment to the realty instead of to the property owner.

Section 522(m) requires bankruptcy exemptions to be applied separately to each debtor, but it does not transform a state-law homestead exemption attached to realty into a separate personal exemption for each owner.

In re: Hal Leslie Reeder and Shannon Carol Reeder · filed 2026-03-12(m)

He postulates that since 11 U.S.C. § 522(m) requires the § 522 exemptions to be applied “separately with respect to each debtor,” perforce he is entitled to claim the value of the homestead as an exemption upon his interest in the jointly held property. That approach simply ignores the basic nature of the homestead and its attachment to the realty instead of to the property owner.

A debtor cannot use subsections (d)(1) or (d)(5) to exempt a spouse’s residence when the debtor has no monetary or ownership interest in the property.

Matter of Cunningham · filed 1980-08-27§§ 522(d)(1), 522(d)(5)

An interest in real property up to $7,500 implies a monetary interest, more than just a right.

Section 522(m) provides that joint debtor spouses are separately entitled to exemptions under § 522.

In Re Burnett · filed 1999-11-02(m)

Joint debtor spouses are separately entitled to this exemption. 11 U.S.C. § 522(m).

Section 522(m) does not require separate exemptions for joint debtors in a state that has opted out of the federal exemption scheme; the state’s exemption law controls.

In Re Whitworth · filed 2001-01-12(m)

states which opt out of the federal exemption scheme set forth at 11 U.S.C. § 522(d) are not bound by § 522(m) to provide exemptions separately to joint debtors.

Section 522(m) entitles each debtor in a joint case to the applicable state exemptions.

Lampe v. Iola Bank & Trust (In Re Lampe) · filed 2002-05-22(m)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(m), “each debtor in a joint case is entitled to the state exemptions.”

Section 522(m) requires the exemption provisions to apply separately to each debtor in a joint bankruptcy case.

Carlson v. Moratzka (In Re Carlson) · filed 2008-09-10(m)

Even though the Carlsons filed a joint bankruptcy petition, the Bankruptcy Code views the two of them as separate debtors with separate estates, and the Carlsons must claim exemptions individually under § 522(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(b)(3) permits a debtor to claim applicable state-law exemptions, and § 522(m) requires § 522 to apply separately to each debtor in a joint case.

In re Rudd · filed 2012-11-09(m), (b)(3)

The filing of a joint case by two spouses does not render § 522(b)(3) or the Alabama insurance exemptions inapplicable. ... Section 522(m) underscores the fact that a joint filing will not result in any impairment to one’s right to claim any § 522 exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(m) (“[T]his section shall apply separately with respect to each debtor in a joint case.”) Thus, each debtor’s estate in a joint proceeding operates on its own, and is entitled to the exemptions as it would have been if it were filed as a separate case.

Section 522(m) requires bankruptcy exemption provisions to apply separately to each debtor in a joint case, so each debtor may claim only exemptions available individually.

In re James · filed 2013-05-23(m)

The code provides that the bankruptcy exemption statutes “shall apply separately with respect to each debtor in joint cases.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(m). Because of this, the debtors can only claim the exemptions to which they would be entitled individually.

Section 522(m) applies the exemption rules separately to each debtor in a joint bankruptcy case, allowing each co-debtor to claim the applicable exemption values.

In re Cintron · filed 2013-09-18(m)

In the instant case, both Debtors opted to claim the exemptions under Puerto Rico law. Thus, each co-debtor is entitled to claim the values established in the Puerto Rico exemption scheme under 11 U.S.C. § 522(m).

Section 522(m) allows each debtor in a joint case to claim exemptions, whether state or federal law determines the amount.

Oliver Reginald Cheeseman and Isabelle Cheeseman v. Erwin B. Nachman, in Re Oliver Reginald Cheeseman and Isabelle Cheeseman, Debtors · filed 1981-07-30(m)

If we were to permit a construction of Virginia law that allows only one householder per residence, the construction would be inconsistent with section 522(m) of the Act, which we interpret as allowing each debtor in a joint case to take some exemptions, whether the amount is determined by state or federal law.

Section 522(m) requires that each debtor in a joint case be allowed to claim exemptions separately.

In Re Gustinis · filed 1981-12-16(m)

This Court must allow both husband and wife to claim some exemptions as determined by either state or federal law in order to be consistent with 11 U.S.C. § 522(m).

Section 522(m) permits each debtor in a joint case to claim a separate New York homestead exemption.

Galofaro v. Fox (In Re Fox) · filed 1983-04-15(m)

I hold that the creditors are ... entitled to a total exemption of $20,000. See also 11 U.S.C. Section 522(m).

Section 522(m) generally applies separately to each debtor in a joint case, but a state that opts out of the federal exemptions is not bound by that rule.

Talmadge v. Duck (In re Talmadge) · filed 1987-11-17(m)

A similar Supremacy Clause argument was recently rejected by this court. In In re Granger, 754 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir.1985), the Ninth Circuit held that a state which opts out and provides its own exemptions is not bound by 11 U.S.C. § 522(m). ... This position is unsupportable since the Ninth Circuit specifically considered and rejected the rationale in Cheeseman; consequently, as regards the Supremacy issue, In re Granger is dispositive.

Section 522(b) lets a debtor choose applicable federal or state exemptions, and § 522(m) applies that choice separately to each debtor in a joint case.

In Re Ancira · filed 1980-08-20(b), (m)

With this background, I interpret the statute liberally in favor of the debtors and in the manner most consistent with the plain language of § 522(m) that the exemptions “shall apply separately with respect to each debtor in a joint case” and hold in favor of the debtors.

Section 522(m) lets each debtor in a joint case independently choose the federal or state exemption system.

In Re Feiss · filed 1981-12-11(m)

It is certainly true that debtors in a joint case may independently elect the federal or state system of exemptions.

Section 522(m) applies the exemption rules separately to each debtor in a joint bankruptcy case.

In Re Stacey · filed 1982-10-05(m)

Congress did not permit the states any legislative rights as to any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, California’s attempt to negate the availability of § 522(m) to debtor domiciliarles is beyond the congressional grant and must be struck down.

Section 522(m) requires the exemption provisions to apply separately to each debtor in a joint case.

In re Soby · filed 1984-02-29(m)

Section 522(m) contemplates that the exemption statutes are to be utilized by a debtor independent of his spouse.

Section 522(m) applies the exemption rules separately to each debtor in a joint case.

In Re Jackson · filed 1992-10-08(m)

Each debtor filing a joint petition is entitled to claim exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(m); ... 11 U.S.C. § 522(m) provides: ... (m) Subject to the limitation in subsection (b), this section shall apply separately with respect to each debtor in a joint case.

Section 522(m) does not prevent spouses in a joint case from each claiming an exemption in life insurance policies whose cash value is community property.

In Re Bower · filed 1999-05-05(m)

It would be unfair to conclude that Mr. and Mrs. Bower are not entitled to individually assert an exemption in life insurance policies of the other simply because 11 U.S.C. § 522(m) states that “this section shall apply separately with respect to each debtor in a joint case.” Mr. and Mrs. Bower have been married for over thirty years, living in only Nevada and California which are community property states. Mr. and Mrs. Bower are entitled to individually assert an exemption to the life insurance policies of the other because the premiums were paid with community property causing any cash value to be community funds to which each had a fifty percent interest.

Section 522(m) entitles each debtor in a joint case to claim exemptions in his or her own right.

In Re Hedrick · filed 2010-08-17(m)

Although joint debtors must use the exemptions available under Illinois law, 11 U.S.C. § 522(m) makes clear that each of the joint debtors is entitled to claim exemptions in his or her own right.

Retroactive application of section 522(f) to a post-enactment judicial lien is constitutional when the avoidance power is rationally related to bankruptcy’s legitimate objectives.

Dotson v. Bradford (In Re Bradford) · filed 1980-09-26§ 522(f)

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

An unliquidated arbitration award is “any property” exemptible under section 522(d)(5), and a garnishment lien on that award is avoidable under section 522(f)(1).

Krupp, Meyers & Hoffman v. Doyle (In Re Laird) · filed 1980-09-29§§ 522(d)(5), 522(f)(1)

Consequently, we conclude that the debtor may claim as exempt under section 522(d)(5) his interest in the arbitration award, which is presently represented by the fund held by the state court, and may, therefore, avoid the garnishment lien of Krupp in that fund, as a judicial lien pursuant to section 522(f)(1).

Ohio may opt out of the federal exemptions under section 522(b)(1), and an Ohio exemption limited to bankruptcy proceedings does not conflict with the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Vasko · filed 1980-10-07§ 522(b)(1)

After reviewing the Ohio law and its effect on the new Bankruptcy Code, it is apparent that no conflict exists.

Under § 522(d)(5), a debtor may apply the unused portion of § 522(d)(1)'s exemption to other property, and § 522(m) permits joint debtors to stack their exemptions.

In Re Collins · filed 1980-08-20§§ 522(d)(1), 522(d)(5), 522(m)

I think it clear that the exemption is based upon § 522(d)(5) and refers to § 522(d)(1) only to clarify that the unused portion of that provision is being applied under the § 522(d)(5) exemption. In addition, even if the debtors were “stacking” their exemptions, the plain language and meaning of § 522(m) permit this.

Section 522(d)(1) and (d)(5) allow debtors to claim homestead and wildcard exemptions when calculating the property available to creditors in a hypothetical liquidation.

In re Raschke · filed 1984-06-13(d)(1), (d)(5)

Assuming that the debtors would make maximum use of their homestead exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(1) and adjusting for certain items claimed by the debtors under the “wild-card” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5), the Raschkes could exempt property worth $18,750.00, leaving $5,850.00 for their creditors.

Section 522(d)(1) provides a federal homestead exemption, while § 522(d)(5) provides a federal wildcard exemption for the debtor’s interest in property.

Grueneich v. Doeling · filed 2009-03-11(d)(1), (d)(5)

Section 522(d)(5), the federal “wildcard” exemption, permits a debtor to exempt “[t]he debtor’s aggregate interest in any property, not to exceed in value $1075 plus up to $10,125 of any unused amount of the exemption provided under paragraph (1) of this subsection.” Paragraph (1), the federal homestead exemption, permits a debtor to exempt $20,200 in a homestead.

Subsection (c) protects property already exempted but creates no separate exemption or avoidance power beyond the specific powers provided in subsections (f), (g), and (h).

Styler v. Local Loan Financial Services (In Re Lanctot) · filed 1980-10-10§§ 522(c), 522(f), 522(g), 522(h)

To construe subsection (c) providing a separate exemption power, then, would be inconsistent with the rest of Section 522 as well as with Section 551.

Section 522(c)(1) removes exempt property from the Code’s protection against liability for § 523(a)(5) family-support debts, but it does not itself make that property liable or authorize execution, so state law may still protect it.

Davis v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 1994-08-05(c)(1)

Rather than affirmatively subjecting exempt property to liability for family support obligations, Congress did not extend the injunction against liability for family support obligations.

Section 522(f) may avoid only liens created after the Bankruptcy Code’s effective date; applying it to earlier liens would violate due process.

Schulte v. Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc. · filed 1980-10-24§ 522(f)

The Court concludes that only those liens created subsequent to October 1, 1979 may be voided by calling upon the powers granted by 11 U.S.C.

When a debtor timely elects the law of the state of domicile under section 522(b)(2)(A), the bankruptcy court must apply that state’s exemption law.

In Re Martin · filed 1980-10-27§ 522(b)(2)(A)

If the debtor timely claims exemptions under the law of the state of his domicile, the Bankruptcy Court must give effect to those exemptions in accordance with the law established in that state.

Section 522(f)(2)(A) cannot extinguish a household-goods lien created before the Bankruptcy Code’s enactment because that retroactive application is impermissible.

Oldham v. Beneficial Finance Co. of New Mexico · filed 1980-11-19§ 522(f)(2)(A)

Section 522(f) does not merely affect secured claims; it authorizes their complete extinction.

Section 522(f) violates due process when retroactively applied to a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest perfected before enactment of the Bankruptcy Code.

Malpeli v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Illinois (In Re Malpeli) · filed 1980-11-24§ 522(f)

when retroactively applied to security interests perfected before enactment of the Code.

A pre-enactment security agreement cannot be subjected to section 522(f) when doing so would destroy the creditor’s existing property right without due process.

Hawley v. Avco Financial Services of Oregon, Inc. (In Re Hawley) · filed 1980-11-25§ 522(f)

To subject their consensual security agreements to a later law which destroyed the effectiveness of those agreements would amount to a retroactive taking of property without due process and accordingly would be unconstitutional.

A judgment creditor whose lien has been fully avoided under section 522(f)(1) lacks standing to challenge the debtor’s failure to avoid another creditor’s mortgage lien.

Hirsh v. Ganz (In Re Hirsh) · filed 1981-01-23§ 522(f)(1)

Since there remains only $12,623.51 from the proceeds of the sale and since the debtors are entitled to an exemption of $15,000 in their residence, we find that the judgment creditors would receive nothing even if the third mortgage was avoided.

Section 522(f) cannot constitutionally be applied to extinguish a pre-enactment household-goods security interest because the creditor acquired substantive rights in specific property before the Bankruptcy Reform Act.

Williams v. Beneficial Finance Co. (In Re Williams) · filed 1981-01-28§ 522(f)

it is the holding of this Court that the defendant did have substantive rights in specific property as of the effective date of the Bankruptcy Reform Act.

Section 522(f)(2) does not apply to liens that attached before November 6, 1978.

In re Gifford · filed 1982-01-21(f)(2)

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

Section 522(f)(2) does not apply retrospectively to destroy pre-enactment property rights.

United States v. Security Pacific Finance Company · filed 1983-04-14(f)(2)

In its opinion, the Court held that section 522(f)(2) was not meant to act retrospectively so as to destroy pre-enactment property rights. ... Accordingly, upon the authority of Security Industrial Bank and for the reasons set forth therein, we affirm the decisions of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in these cases.

Section 522(f)(2) permits avoidance of a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in specified household goods when it impairs an exemption, but it cannot constitutionally be applied to liens acquired before the statute's effective date.

Groves v. Household Finance Co. · filed 1981-03-10(f)(2)

There is no indication of, nor can this Court discern, some form of distinction such that application of Sec. 522(f) to pre-November 6, 1978 liens is retroactive whereas application of Sec. 522(f) to interim period or “gap” liens is not retroactive; application of Sec. 522(f) to any lien arising prior to October 1, 1979 is, therefore, retroactive. Consequently, the Radford principle repeatedly referred to above remains binding and dictates that Congress may not, by legislation, completely take for the benefit of a debtor a creditor’s substantive rights in specific property which were acquired prior to the effective date of the legislation.

A nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest acquired after enactment but before the Code’s effective date may be avoided under section 522(f) when the creditor acquired the property right after enactment.

Seltzer v. General Finance Corp. (In Re Seltzer) · filed 1980-11-04§ 522(f)

FURTHER ORDERED that the security interests claimed by the Defendant be and they hereby are set aside and held for naught to the extent that such security interests attach to household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel, appliances, books, animals, crops, musical instruments, jewelery, or implements, professional books, or tools of the trade of the Debtor, or professionally prescribed health aids, as more fully described in 11 U.S.C.

A debtor may claim wages as exempt under section 522 and avoid a judicial garnishment writ that would prevent payment of those wages.

University of Alabama Hospitals v. Warren (In Re Warren) · filed 1980-11-14§§ 522(b), 522(d), 522(f)

the debtor can avoid the judicial writ which otherwise would preclude the garnishee from paying to the debtor the amount then owed.

Section 522(f) permits a Chapter 13 debtor to avoid a qualifying lien that impairs an exemption.

Lincoln v. Beneficial Finance Co. (In Re Lincoln) · filed 1982-11-23(f)

For the above reasons, I hold that a Chapter 13 debtor may exercise the avoidance rights under § 522(f).

Section 522(f) permits a Chapter 13 debtor to avoid a judicial lien or qualifying nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest.

In Re Cowart · filed 1984-10-12(f)

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the hen of Fleet Financenter on exempt property of the debtor is avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2).

Section 522(f)(2) allows a Chapter 13 debtor to avoid a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in household goods when it impairs the debtor’s exemption, including in a state that has opted out of the federal exemptions.

In Re Jackson · filed 1985-12-02(f)(2)

For the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that Section 522(f) applies in Chapter 13 cases of the Bankruptcy Code. In addition, this Court finds that while a state may “opt-out” of the federal exemptions listed in Section 522(d), a state may not “opt-out” of Section 522(f) and that the debtors’ motion to avoid the non-possessory, nonpurchase money security interest in the household personal property of the debtors which impairs the total value of the property as exempt be avoided permanently.

Section 522(f) permits lien avoidance through a Chapter 13 plan only when the plan gives adequate notice by identifying the creditor, the collateral subject to the lien, and the debtor’s intent to avoid the lien.

Dronsfield v. McGarrity (In Re Dronsfield) · filed 2010-09-14(f)

There is no reason to assume that the standard for avoiding a lien under § 522(f) would be lower. Even in 1997, in order to avoid a lien through confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, Debtors were required to provide basic information in the plan identifying the creditor, the collateral subject to the lien and Debtors’ intention to avoid the lien under § 522(f).

Section 522(f) permits immediate judicial lien avoidance for Chapter 13 plan treatment, with complete avoidance upon plan completion.

In re Petersen · filed 2016-11-08(f)

As set forth herein, the Court finds that the Trustee has standing to the object to the Motion, and the Court determines that lien avoidance under § 522(f) is effective immediately to recognize the homestead exemption rights of the Debtors for chapter 13 plan consummation purposes. Upon completion of the plan, the judicial lien impairing the homestead exemption may be avoided in its entirety.

Pennsylvania entireties property is exempt under section 522(b)(2)(B) to the extent state law makes it immune from execution against one spouse.

In Re Barsotti · filed 1980-11-14§ 522(b)(2)(B)

entireties property held by a debtor-spouse in bankruptcy is exempt by being immune from process.

Section 522(f)(2) may constitutionally apply to qualifying security interests created between the Code’s enactment and effective dates.

Webber v. Credithrift of America, Inc., No. 6 (In Re Webber) · filed 1980-11-17§ 522(f)(2)

retroactivity.

Section 522(b)(2)(A) permits a debtor to claim exemptions under applicable state or other federal law, requiring the state’s intended exemptions to be identifiable with reasonable certainty.

In the Matter of Gerald E. GEISE, Jr., Debtor-Appellant · filed 1993-04-16(b)(2)(A)

As a starting point, we recall that the purpose of section 522(b)(2)(A) is to afford a state an opportunity to substitute its judgment for that of the Congress with respect to what property ought to be excluded from the bankruptcy estate. Our basic task, therefore, is to discern the will of the state legislature: what was the exemption scheme that the legislature wished to make available to the state’s residents as an alternative to the federal exemptions set forth in the Bankruptcy Code? It is not unreasonable to expect that the state’s policy judgment will be set forth with sufficient clarity to permit the bankruptcy court administering the estate to identify the state exemptions with reasonable certainty.

Section 522(b)(2)(A) permits a debtor to exempt property under state law only if that law was applicable when the bankruptcy petition was filed.

In Re Walter C. Leadbetter, Debtor, Marvin A. Sicherman, Trustee v. The Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Prog · filed 1993-04-30(b)(2)(A)

Section 522(b)(2)(A) allows exemption of property exempted by state law "applicable on the date of the filing of the petition."

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an entireties interest held immediately before bankruptcy to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process.

In Re Alderton · filed 1995-03-08(b)(2)(B)

Because the debt- or held the property as a tenant by the entirety immediately before the commencement of the case, his exemption was proper when claimed.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) exempts a debtor’s ownership interest in property held by the entireties from the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Koesling · filed 1997-06-24(b)(2)(B)

In bankruptcy, the form of ownership of the two notes is determinative in whether the property is exempt from the estate. If the notes are determined to be held by the entireties, then the debtor’s ownership interest in the notes is exempt. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B) (1996).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits an exemption for property held as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant only to the extent that applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process, and the court upheld the objection to this claimed exemption.

In Re Susanne Gutpelet, Debtor, Susanne Gutpelet · filed 1998-03-03(b)(2)(B)

Therefore the bankruptcy court properly sustained the Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s claimed exemption in the two PNC Bank accounts.

Under § 522(b)(2)(B), a debtor may exempt a tenancy-by-the-entirety or joint-tenancy interest only to the extent it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, which the court determines under state law.

In Re Gillette · filed 1999-03-03§ 522(b)(2)(B)

The Debtor’s interest in the property may be exempt from the estate to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Whether the Debtor’s interest in the joint account in Wisconsin is exempt from process is also determined by Wisconsin law.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) does not exempt tenancy-by-the-entireties property when, by the bankruptcy petition date, a divorce has ended the tenancy.

Webster v. Hope (In Re Hope) · filed 1999-03-03(b)(2)(B)

If a bankruptcy petition is filed after a divorce, when the property is no longer held in tenancy by the entireties, the property is no longer entitled to the § 522(b)(2)(B) exemption.