11 U.S.C. § 522

Under § 522(b)(2)(B), an interest held as a tenancy by the entirety is exempt from the bankruptcy estate to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law protects it from process.

Somerset Savings Bank v. Goldberg · filed 1994-05-05§ 522(b)(2)(B)

In conclusion, this Court affirms the ruling of the bankruptcy judge that the Wellesley property is exempt from the bankruptcy estate.

A debtor cannot avoid a judicial lien under section 522(f) when the debtor has not properly established that tenancy-by-the-entirety property is exempt under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc. (In Re Ragsdale) · filed 1981-03-17§§ 522(b)(2)(B), 522(f)(1)

relief under section 522(f) is inappropriate because there is no exempt property to protect.

A debtor has an interest in fully encumbered household goods for purposes of section 522(f), and the statute may be used to avoid a qualifying lien even when the debt exceeds the collateral’s value.

Lovett v. Beneficial Finance Co. (In Re Lovett) · filed 1981-03-17§ 522(f)

It is therefore ORDERED that the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is hereby affirmed.

After Rodrock, section 522(f) is unconstitutional for liens vesting before November 6, 1978, but constitutional for liens vesting after that date.

Baker v. GFC Corp. (In Re Baker) · filed 1981-03-19§ 522(f)

constitutional as applied to liens vesting subsequent to that date.

Under § 522(b)(2), the court held that New Jersey law governs the exemption of real property located in New Jersey and upheld the objection to the debtor's claimed exemption of the condominiums.

Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago Inc. · filed 1995-11-06(b)(2)

This Court concludes that the bankruptcy court was correct in applying the law of the state where the property is located.

Claiming property as exempt under § 522(b)(2) does not prevent the trustee from administering entireties property for creditors who could reach it under state law.

Shaia v. Meyer (In Re Meyer) · filed 1997-03-24§ 522(b)(2)

benefit of creditors who could reach that property under state law.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits an exemption for a debtor's entireties or joint-tenancy interest only to the extent that applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process; the court applied it and upheld denial of the exemption because the funds were estate property resulting from an avoidable transfer.

In Re 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’s interest in entireties property is exempt only to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process.

Van Der Heide v. John v. LaBarge, Jr. · filed 1999-01-22(b)(2)(B)

An interest of the debtor in property held as a tenant by the entirety at the commencement of the case is exempt under bankruptcy law to the extent that it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

Under § 522(b)(2)(B), Missouri tenancy-by-the-entirety property and its sale proceeds may be exempted from individual creditors' claims when Missouri law protects the property from those creditors.

In Re Brown · filed 1999-04-30§ 522(b)(2)(B)

The Code, the Rules, and Missouri law allow debtors to exempt tenants by the entirety property, and the proceeds therefrom, from the claims of individual creditors.

Section 522(b) permits a debtor using state exemptions to exempt an interest in entireties property to the extent the applicable state law provides that exemption.

In Re Howe · filed 1999-11-16(b)(2)(B)

When a debt- or chooses state exemptions, or when the debtor’s state requires state exemptions, the debtor is entitled to an exemption for any interest in property held by the debtor as a tenant by the entirety to the extent that the applicable state law provides such an exemption.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits an entireties exemption only to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law provides it, so electing Texas exemptions did not preserve Missouri entireties protection.

In Re Sumpter · filed 1999-11-09§ 522(b)(2)(B)

Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code (the Code) gives a debtor discretion to claim an exemption in tenancy by the entireties property, but it does not mandate it: ... (2)(B) any interest in property in 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 interest as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law. ... But, this exemption is allowed under Missouri, not Texas, law. Here the Sumpters ultimately elected Texas, not Missouri, exemptions, so tenancy by the entirety is not applicable.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt entireties property from the estate when applicable state law protects it from individual creditors.

Brown v. Eads (In Re Eads) · filed 2002-01-04(b)(2)(B)

Once having come into the bankruptcy estate, however, the entireties property may nevertheless be exempted from property of the estate, if permitted by non-bankruptcy state law.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest held immediately before bankruptcy to the extent it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, including entireties property immune from individual creditor attack.

In Re Manicure · filed 1983-04-15(b)(2)(B)

Section 522(b)(2)(B) provides that an individual debtor may exempt from property of the estate such interest that the debtor had “immediately before the commencement of the case” to the extent that such interest is exempt from process under applicable non-bankruptcy law. Under Virginia law, property held by the entireties is immune from individual creditor attack. ... A challenge to the propriety of the transfer creating the tenancy by the entirety is a matter that the Trustee only can pursue under § 544(b). Unless the Trustee in this case institutes a proper adversary proceeding (pursuant to his duties under § 704) within 30 days from this date to recover an allegedly fraudulent or voluntary transfer for the benefit of the creditors, the entireties property claimed as exempt under § 522(b)(2)(B) will be so adjudged.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) treats a debtor’s interest in entireties property as exempt only to the extent it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, and § 522(f)(1) does not permit avoidance of a judicial lien that impairs no available exemption.

In Re Gibbons · filed 1985-09-13(b)(2)(B), (f)(1)

In applying § 522(b)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code here, we have narrowly concluded that property subject to attachment in Rhode Island is not “exempt from process,” and that it therefore does not qualify as exempt property under federal bankruptcy law. ... We also hold that a Rhode Island debtor electing state exemptions may not avoid judicial liens against entireties property under § 522(f)(1), because such liens do not impair any exemption to which he/she is entitled under state law.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) protects entireties property from the individual creditors of either spouse to the extent Michigan law makes the entire interest exempt from their claims.

Raynard v. Rogers (In Re Raynard) · filed 2006-10-25(b)(2)(B)

The bankruptcy court failed to realize that entireties property is fully exempt from the claims of individual creditors under all circumstances.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits an exemption for a debtor’s interest in entireties property only to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law; joint debtors cannot use it to exempt entireties property from joint creditors.

In Re: Brannon · filed 2007-02-07(b)(3)(B)

Where spouses are joint debtors they may not claim the general exemption in § 522(b)(3)(B) for property they hold by the entireties. ... Nevertheless, filing a bankruptcy petition does not sever a tenancy by the entirety and thus an individual spouse may be able to exempt the whole of entireties property from the bankruptcy estate in some circumstances.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits exemption of property held as a tenancy by the entirety or joint tenancy when the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, without applying the domicile restrictions in § 522(b)(3)(A).

In Re Zolnierowicz · filed 2007-03-28(b)(3)(B)

The domicile provisions that are set forth in subsection (A) of § 522(b)(3) do not apply to claims of exemption for en-tireties property under subsection (B) of § 522(b)(3). ... When property is claimed as exempt as entireties property under § 522(b)(3)(B) the primary issues are (1) whether the debtor had an interest in the property as a tenant by the entireties immediately before the commencement of the case, and (2) whether the property “is exempt from process under applicable non-bankruptcy law.” ... Whether the Debtor had an interest in the property as a tenant by the entireties is a matter to be determined under Florida law, and whether the property is exempt from process is also determined under Florida law.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt entireties property to the extent the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In re Story · filed 2015-08-11(b)(3)(B)

Section 522(b)(3)(B) authorizes the exemption of property held as tenants by the entireties to the extent the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law. ... The Court will address the Spouse’s Waiver. In sum, the Spouse’s Waiver has no effect on what portion of the Assets is property of the estate, nor does it affect Debtor’s claim of exemption. ... As such, the Spouse’s Waiver is, for the limited purposes of resolving the matter before the Court today, nothing more than a contract between Mrs. Story and Creditor Centrue Bank, and therefore of no effect to this Court’s determination of the scope of the property of the estate or the extent of Debtor’s exemption in the same. The Assets remain entireties property and will be treated accordingly in this case.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) allows an exemption for entireties property only to the extent the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law; federal law governs whether a federal restitution judgment can reach the interest.

In re Conrad · filed 2016-01-04(b)(3)(B)

That question is resolved by the determination above — that the “applicable nonbankruptcy law” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B) is federal law, and under federal law the Debtor’s entire-ties interest is subject to process by the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a).

Section 522(b)(2)(A) permits a debtor choosing state exemptions to exempt property exempt under federal law other than § 522(d), and the court rejected treating ERISA plans as such an exemption.

In Re Volpe · filed 1989-04-28(b)(2)(A)

The Fifth Circuit concluded that ERISA was not a “federal exemption” as contemplated by Code § 522(b)(2)(A). ... I find insufficient support for the Debtors position on this issue and reject it.

Section 522(b)(2) permits debtors to claim applicable state law exemptions, including Florida's personal property exemption.

In Re Adelson · filed 1999-09-30(b)(2)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2) and Article X, Section 4(a)(2) of the Florida Constitution, each debtor is entitled to claim, as exempt, personal property up to $1,000 in value; and, as such, the Debtors were limited in the amount of their joint personal property exemption to $2,000.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits exemption of entireties property only to the extent it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, while section 522(g)(1) limits exemptions for property recovered by a trustee after a voluntary transfer.

Baker v. Rotunda (In Re Rotunda) · filed 1985-12-09(b)(2)(B), (g)(1)

There are three reasons why the claimed exemption should not be allowed: ... (1) Section 522(b)(2)(B) governing exemptions is limited to “any interest in property which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entireties ... ”. The evidence produced here shows that debtor’s interest as a tenant by the entireties was extinguished five days before the filing of the bankruptcy petition by the conveyance of the property by debtor and his non-debtor spouse. ... (2) Section 522(g)(1) of the Code provides: Notwithstanding sections 550 and 551 of this title the debtor may exempt under subsection (b) of this section property that the trustee recovers under section 510(c)(2), 542, 543, 550, 551 or 553 of this title, to the extent that the debtor could have exempted property under subsection (b) of this section if such property had not been transferred, if— ... (1)(A) such transfer was not a voluntary transfer by the debtor.... ... There is no evidence that this was not a voluntary transfer; that issue has not been raised, and the Bankruptcy Court was convinced that it was deliberately transferred in an attempt to avoid the consequences of the bankruptcy proceedings. ... (3) It appears to this court that equitable principles should estop the debtor from claiming the exemption, inter alia, the transfer of the property shortly before the bankruptcy filing and the concealment of the transfer in the bankrupt’s schedule. While the bankruptcy judge made certain observations on these matters, there was no final decision on the Trustee’s action to avoid the transfer because of its decision on the Trustee’s standing. The finding of the Bankruptcy Court on remand should determine the weight to be given the equitable considerations here.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) allows a debtor to exempt entireties property and permits conversion of nonexempt property into exempt property before bankruptcy without that conversion alone proving fraud.

Gayl v. Shader (In Re Shader) · filed 1988-08-23(b)(2)(B)

Gayl’s burden is a difficult one. He is first faced with the basic proposition that: ... Mere conversion of property from nonexempt to exempt on the eve of bankruptcy — even though the purpose is to shield the asset from creditors—is not enough to show fraud. ... This proposition follows from the legislative history of § 522(b)(2)(B) expressing the congressional intent that a debtor is to be allowed full use of the exemption. ... As under current law, the debtor will be permitted to convert nonexempt property into exempt property before filing a bankruptcy petition. The practice is not fraudulent as to creditors, and permits the debtor to make full use of the exemptions to which he is entitled under the law. H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 361 (1977); S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 76 (1978).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) does not limit an entireties exemption to the law of the debtor’s state of domicile.

In Re Cochrane · filed 1995-01-30(b)(2)(B)

The other one — the one that the Debtor invokes in this ease — is not so limited; § 522(b)(2)(B) contains no provision limiting the governing “applicable nonbankrupt-cy law” to that of the debtor’s state of domicile.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) exempts a debtor’s interest in entireties property to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law protects it from process.

In Re Rentfro · filed 1999-05-26(b)(2)(B)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B), an interest of the debtor in property held as a tenant by the entirety at the commencement of the case is exempt under bankruptcy law to the extent that it is exempt from process under applicable non-bankruptcy law.

Section 522 permits a debtor to exempt only property of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Brown · filed 2001-03-12(b)(2)

Therefore, Debtor’s personal injury claim is not exemptible because it is not property of the estate.

A consensual lien securing a divorce property-division payment is not avoidable under section 522(f)(1), whether treated as pre-effective-date or as a voluntary lien judicially sanctioned after the effective date.

Dunn v. Dunn (In Re Dunn) · filed 1981-03-30§ 522(f)(1)

SO ORDERED.

Section 522(f)(2) cannot be applied to security interests created before enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act because complete avoidance substantially impairs the creditor’s rights.

Bailey v. CIT (In re Bailey) · filed 1981-03-30§ 522(f)(2)

This memorandum constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of law, Bankruptcy Rule 752.

Section 522(f)(2)(A)'s federal arithmetic formula determines whether a judicial lien impairs an exemption under § 522(f)(1), so state law no longer defines impairment.

Case name unavailable · filed 1998-07-31(f)(1), (f)(2)(A), and (b)

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

Section 522(f)(2)(A) requires the impairment formula to be applied without preserving a creditor’s state-law lien priority, so the judicial liens were avoidable in their entirety.

Katz v. Pike (In Re Pike) · filed 1999-12-28(f)(2)(A)

Thus, the ultimate issue in this appeal is whether the homestead exemption is impaired so that the lien can be avoided under § 522(f). The focus is not on state law lien priority, but on the meaning in the Bankruptcy Code of the phrase “to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled.”

Section 522(f) preempts a state-law exemption exception that would block avoidance of the judicial liens Congress made avoidable.

Willis v. Strother (In Re Strother) · filed 2005-08-05(f)

Richardson therefore supports the conclusion that § 522(f) preempts Oklahoma’s exemption exception and allows Strother to avoid Willis’s liens.

Section 522(b) permits a debtor to claim the federal exemptions in § 522(d) unless the debtor’s state of domicile opts out.

In re Lind · filed 1981-04-09§ 522(b)

§ 522(b) provides that a debtor may exempt from property of the estate ... property that is specified under ... U.S.C. § 522(d) unless the state law of the debtor’s domicile provides otherwise.

A refinancing after the Code’s effective date creates a new lien that may be avoided under section 522(f)(2)(A), and its application to that new lien is constitutional.

Alston v. City Finance Co. of Tennessee (In Re Alston) · filed 1981-04-13§ 522(f)(2)(A)

City Finance is chargeable with notice of the applicable avoiding authority of Section 522(f) and is subject thereof.

Section 522(b)(1) allows a state to opt out of the federal exemption scheme and require its residents to use the state’s exemption laws.

In Re Hanes · filed 1994-01-1911 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1)

That same section, however, permits states to “opt out” of § 522, and to require their residents to exempt property according to their own exemption laws.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions and thereby limit bankruptcy debtors to exemptions available under state law.

In Re Royal · filed 1994-03-28§ 522(b)(1)

Although the Bankruptcy Code provides a federal scheme of exemptions, 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) and (d), a state is permitted to limit a debtor in bankruptcy to those exemptions available under state law by opting out of the federal exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1).

When a state opts out of the federal exemptions, the exemptions available in its bankruptcy cases are determined by that state's law.

In Re Foster · filed 1994-05-20(b)(1)

Indiana has opted out of the federal exemptions set forth in 11 U.S.C. Section 522(b)(1) and Indiana law determines what property a debtor may exempt from his creditors in or out of the bankruptcy arena.

Missouri's opt-out of the federal exemptions remains effective despite later amendments to § 522(d).

In Re Lee · filed 1995-03-24(b)(1), (d)

The recent bankruptcy amendments to § 522 do not apply to this subsection. Since the opt out provision of § 522(b) was not changed by the 1994 amendments it remains valid law and the Missouri legislature’s decision in 1982 to opt out endures.

Section 522 allows a state to opt out of the federal exemptions and apply its own statutory exemption scheme.

In Re Johnson · filed 1995-01-26(b)

Section 522 of Title 11 of the United States Code ... allows states to opt out of the federal exemptions in order to utilize their own statutory exemption schemes.

When a state opts out of the federal exemption scheme, state law governs how and when exemptions are claimed.

In Re Bernstein · filed 1995-04-07(b)(1) (b)(2)

Congress intended to provide the states with flexibility on the exemption issue by permitting them to opt out of the federal exemption scheme set up by the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Once a state opts out, federal law and procedure do not govern.

Section 522(b)(1) lets states opt out of the federal exemption scheme and use their own bankruptcy exemptions.

In Re Storer · filed 1995-07-13(b)(1)

Thus, Congress vested states with the authority to deny their citizens the ability to use the federal exemption scheme embodied in Bankruptcy Code Sec. 522(d).

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions scheme, so Indiana's exemption statute could govern and limit the debtors' entireties exemption without violating the Supremacy Clause.

Meyer v. Hammes (In Re Meyer) · filed 1995-09-27(b)(1)

Based on the plain wording of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), and its interpretation by the Seventh Circuit, this Court holds that Indiana Code section 34-2-28-l(a)(5) does not conflict with the exemption provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal bankruptcy exemption scheme, so Missouri's exemption rules govern instead of the federal exemptions.

In Re Searcy · filed 1996-03-01(b)(1)

The Code permits a state to opt out of the Federal bankruptcy exemption scheme. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1).

Section 522(b)(1) permits states to opt out of the federal exemption scheme, in which case the debtor’s exemptions are determined under state law.

In Re Rawn · filed 1996-08-14§ 522(b)(1)

Therefore, when a state has opted out of the federal exemption scheme of § 522(d), the court must look to state law to determine the source and scope of.the debtor’s exemptions.

Section 522(b)(1) lets a state opt out of the federal exemptions in § 522(d) and establish an exemption scheme that may protect more or less property than the federal scheme.

Case name unavailable · filed 1997-09-24(b)(1)

The unambiguous language of Sec. 522(b) implicitly indicates a state may exempt the same property included in 522(d), more property than that included in 522(d), or less property than that.

Section 522(b)(1) lets a state opt out of the federal exemption scheme and require bankruptcy debtors to use only state exemptions.

King v. Webb · filed 1997-11-06§ 522(b)(1)

Yet, each state is permitted to “opt out” of the federal exemption scheme, and require its debtors to utilize only state exemptions in bankruptcy cases.

Section 522(b) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions and limit its residents to state-law exemptions.

In Re Leucht · filed 1998-06-02§ 522(b)

Section 522 permits a state to ... federal exemptions and limit its residents to those exemptions provided under state law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemption scheme.

In re Robinson · filed 1999-12-21(b)(1)

As permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), Iowa opted out of the federal exemption scheme.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemption scheme, limiting debtors filing there to exemptions available under state law.

In Re Mueller · filed 2000-11-07(b)(1)

Because Maryland has “opted out” of the Federal exemption scheme, debtors who file bankruptcy petitions in Maryland may only claim exemptions afforded them under State law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) (2000); Md.Code Ann., Cts. and Jud. Proc. § ll-504(g) (2000).

Section 522(b)(1) permits a debtor to choose between the federal exemptions and applicable state-law exemptions, but a state may opt out of the federal exemptions; Florida debtors are therefore limited to exemptions allowed by Florida law.

In Re McClain · filed 2002-06-13(b)(1)

While the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to choose between exemptions, Florida citizens are not entitled to the federal exemptions listed in § 522(d). Florida citizens are entitled to only those exemptions allowed by state law, which exemptions are enumerated in the Florida Constitution (Article X, § 4) and the Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat. § 222.201 et seq.).

Section 522(b)(1) permits states to opt out of the federal exemption scheme and enact their own exemption statutes.

In Re Fixel · filed 2002-11-27(b)(1)

Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that states may choose to “opt out” of the federal scheme and enact their own exemption statutes.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions, leaving debtors in that state to claim only the exemptions available under § 522(b)(2).

In re Zaidi · filed 2002-12-16(b)(1)

The exemptions that may be claimed are those provided in § 522(d) (the federal bankruptcy exemptions) or under § 522(b)(2), (nonbankruptcy exemptions) unless a state has opted out of the federal bankruptcy exemptions in which case only those exemptions allowable under § 522(b)(2) are available. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). Virginia has opted out of the federal exemptions. Virginia Code § 34-3.1. Consequently, in Virginia, debtors may only claim those exemptions allowed under § 522(b)(2).

Section 522(b)(1) permits a debtor to claim the federal exemptions unless applicable state law opts them out, and § 522(b)(2)(A) identifies applicable state law by the debtor’s recent domicile.

In Re Arispe · filed 2002-12-23(b)(1), (b)(2)(A)

This Court holds as a matter of law that Florida Statute § 222.20 does not apply to non immigrant alien debtors that reside in the state of Florida, but are not domiciled in Florida when they file their bankruptcy petition. Thus, the OpNOut Statute does not prevent them from utilizing the federal exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b).

Section 522(b) allows states to opt out of the federal exemption scheme, after which the court applies the state’s exemption law.

In Re Allen · filed 2003-10-02(b)

Accordingly, this Court must apply Iowa law in ruling on the pending exemption controversy.

When a state opts out of the federal exemption scheme, a bankruptcy debtor may claim the property exemptions available under that state’s non-bankruptcy law.

In re Neal · filed 2004-03-19(b)(1), (b)(2)(A)

Virginia has “opted out” of the general exemption scheme provided by the Bankruptcy Code, as permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), which results in Virginia bankruptcy debtors being entitled to whatever property exemptions from the claims of creditors that they would be entitled to outside of bankruptcy under non-bankruptcy substantive law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(A); Va.Code § 34-3.1 (Repl. Vol.1996).

Section 522(b)(1) permits a debtor to use the federal exemptions in § 522(d) unless applicable state law specifically disallows them.

Belfance v. Hicks (In Re Hicks) · filed 1980-03-28(b)(1), (d)

The Ohio Legislature in enacting 2329.662 of the Revised Ohio Code specified that Ohio law does not authorize debtors who are domiciled in Ohio to exempt the property specified in 11 U.S.C. Section 522(d).

Section 522(b)(1) allows a state to opt out of the federal bankruptcy exemptions, in which case the applicable state exemption statutes prevail.

Epperley v. Woodyard (In Re Epperley) · filed 1980-04-11(b)(1)

and consequently, the exemption statutes contained in the Code of Virginia prevail.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemption scheme, limiting its residents to exemptions provided by state law, so long as the state's exemption scheme is not inconsistent with the Code.

In Re Parrish · filed 1982-04-06(b)(1)

The Court agrees with those cases cited by the debtor that state that Congress cannot delegate unfettered authority to the states to regulate bankruptcy exemptions. The states, if they decide to exercise the "opt-out" authority delegated by Congress, must provide their citizens with a scheme of bankruptcy exemptions that is not inconsistent with those of the Code. As pointed out, supra, although Colorado's scheme is not identical to 11 U.S.C. § 522(d), it is quite close. And it is the opinion of this Court that the Colorado law is in conformity with the federal legislative intent to provide the required "fresh start" to debtors in bankruptcy. Therefore, the debtor may use only those exemptions provided for in Colorado law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits states to opt out of the federal exemptions in § 522(d) and develop their own exemption schemes without being bound by § 522(d)'s standards.

Lipshie v. Bartley (In Re Bartley) · filed 1983-10-19(b)(1), (d)(5)

Under the foregoing authorities and under the unambiguous language of § 522(b)(1), the states are free to develop their individual exemption schemes unencumbered by the standards enunciated in § 522(d). In light of this conclusion, there is no conflict between § 283 2. of the Debt- or and Creditor Law and U.S.C. § 522(d)(5). Thus, this section of the New York “opt-out” statute is not antagonistic to the letter of or policies underlying the Code and does not offend the supremacy clause.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions in § 522(d), requiring debtors in that state to use applicable state exemptions.

In Re Latham · filed 2004-11-01(b)(1)

Section 522 allows states to “opt out” of the federal exemptions enumerated in § 522(d) and use their own. ... Accordingly, debtors in Tennessee are required to use Tennessee’s statutory exemptions.

Section 522(b)(1) makes the exemptions in § 522(d) available unless applicable state law does not authorize them, allowing states to opt out and establish their own exemptions.

Hamm v. James · filed 2005-04-21(b), (b)(1)

More specifically, § 522(b) provides that certain exemptions set forth in § 522(d) are available to an individual debtor unless the state law applicable to the debtor does not authorize such exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). In essence, § 522(b) provides each state with the power to “opt out” of the exemptions provided under bankruptcy law in § 522(d) and instead to create that state’s own exemptions.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal bankruptcy exemptions, so debtors in that state may claim only exemptions available under state law.

In Re Gardiner · filed 2005-09-30(b)(1)

California has opted out of the federal exemptions contained in 11 U.S.C. section 522(b)(1). The Debtor is therefore permitted to claim as exempt only that property which is exempt under state law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to restrict its residents in bankruptcy to exemptions allowed under state law.

In Re Rogers · filed 2005-10-05(b)(1)

Idaho has accepted the Bankruptcy Code’s invitation to restrict its citizens to the exemptions allowed under state law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1); Idaho Code § 11-609.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions, leaving debtors in that state to use state-law exemptions.

In Re Hellen · filed 2005-08-30(b)(1)

Illinois took advantage of this provision and opted out ... Accordingly, Illinois debtors must utilize the exemptions provided by Illinois law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal bankruptcy exemption scheme, so debtors in that state use the applicable nonfederal exemptions.

In re Nguyen · filed 2005-10-06(b)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code (the Code) permits a state to opt out of the federal bankruptcy exemption scheme.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a debtor domiciled in New York to claim only the bankruptcy exemptions allowed under New York law.

In Re Quackenbush · filed 2006-04-05(b)(1)

New York residents can only claim the bankruptcy exemptions permitted by New York law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a debtor to choose between federal § 522(d) exemptions and applicable state or federal nonbankruptcy exemptions, subject to a state law opting out of the federal scheme.

In Re Kimble · filed 2006-06-13(b)(1)

Section 522(b)(1) of the Code offers a debtor the choice between exempting the property specified in § 522(d) or utilizing the exemptions provided by federal non-bankruptcy law or state law “unless the State law that is applicable to the debtor ... specifically does not so authorize!)]” 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). Because Ohio has chosen to “opt out” of the federal exemption scheme, the Debtors are limited to the exemptions provided under Ohio law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions in § 522(d), requiring debtors in that state to use applicable state-law exemptions.

In re Wilson · filed 2006-08-08(b)(1)

Section 522(b) is the “opt out” provision, allowing states to require the use of then-own exemptions rather than the federal exemptions enumerated in § 522(d).

Section 522(b)(1) expressly allows states to restrict their residents to state-law exemptions instead of the federal bankruptcy exemptions and grants states broad authority to create bankruptcy-specific exemptions.

Sheehan v. Peveich · filed 2009-07-24(b)(1)

Section 522(b)(1) affords the states the authority to restrict their respective residents to exemptions promulgated by the state legislatures, if they so choose. This statutory provision is an express delegation to the states of the power to create state exemptions in lieu of the federal bankruptcy exemption scheme. See Hovis v. Wright, 751 F.2d 714, 716 (4th Cir. 1985) (concluding that § 522(b)(1) grants the states broad power to craft state exemption laws applicable to bankruptcy proceedings). Congress has not seen fit to restrict the authority delegated to the states by requiring that state exemptions apply equally to bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy cases, and we are without authority to impose such a requirement.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions in § 522(d), so debtors in that state must claim exemptions under applicable state law and federal law other than § 522(d).

In Re Anderson · filed 2009-08-10(b)(1)

Further, since the exemption comes from a federal law other than § 522(d), it would appear that that exemption would apply only to those debtors who choose, or are required to claim (as Missouri debtors are), exemptions under state law and federal law other than § 522(d).

Section 522(b)(1) lets a debtor choose the federal exemptions or applicable nonbankruptcy or state-law exemptions unless the applicable state opts out; when the state opts out, the debtor is limited to that state’s exemptions.

In Re Waller · filed 2010-02-23(b)(1)

Section 522(b)(1) of the Code offers a debtor the choice between exempting the property specified in § 522(d) or utilizing the exemptions provided by federal non-bankruptcy law or state law “unless the State law that is applicable to the debtor ... specifically does not so authorize[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). Because Ohio has chosen to “opt out” of the federal exemption scheme, the Debtors are limited to the exemptions provided under Ohio law.

Section 522(b)(3)(A) does not require state or local exemptions available in bankruptcy to be identical to those available to nonbankruptcy debtors.

Sticka v. Applebaum (In Re Applebaum) · filed 2009-12-18(b)(1), (b)(3)(A)

As a result, a separate bankruptcy-only exemption scheme is not in and of itself preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

Section 522 permits a debtor to choose the federal exemptions or, where applicable, state-law and other federal exemptions, and allows a state to opt out of the federal exemption list.

In re McFarland · filed 2012-09-29(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2), Georgia has “opted out” of the Bankruptcy Code exemptions. Thus, debtors filing bankruptcy in Georgia may take the state law exemptions allowed in O.C.G.A. § 44-13-100 and federal nonbankruptcy law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a debtor to choose between the federal exemptions in § 522(b)(2) and the exemptions in § 522(b)(3), but a state that opts out of the federal scheme limits its debtors to § 522(b)(3) exemptions.

In re Sharif · filed 2017-02-16(b)(1) and (b)(2)

The Bankruptcy Code provides that debtors may choose between the exemptions provided by section 522(b)(2) (the so-called “federal” exemptions) or, the exemptions listed in section 522(b)(3), which include exemptions provided by state law and federal nonbankruptcy law.

Section 522(b)(1) provides that a debtor's exemptions are determined under the federal exemption scheme unless the applicable state has opted out, in which case the state's exemptions apply.

KARA FRANCES JENNINGS · filed 2020-03-06(b)(1)

The property that a debtor may exempt is determined under § 522 unless the applicable state opted out of the federal exemption scheme. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). Arizona has opted out of the federal exemption scheme provided in § 522(d) so only Arizona exemptions apply in this case. A.R.S. § 33-1133(B).

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemption scheme, so debtors in that state are limited to exemptions allowed under state law.

Sally F Bentley · filed 2020-11-09(b)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), Oklahoma opted out of the federal exemption scheme under the Bankruptcy Code, thereby limiting the exemptions available to debtors in Oklahoma to those allowed under state law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to opt out of the federal exemptions, leaving its own exemption law to govern.

Ballou v. Lentz (In Re Ballou) · filed 1981-07-24(b)(1)

The Kansas State Legislature did opt out the federal exemption; therefore, the exemption laws of the state of Kansas will govern.

Section 522(b)(1) constitutionally permits a state to bar debtors from using the federal exemptions in § 522(d).

Stinson v. Pitrat · filed 1984-02-14(b)(1)

The issues raised by the Stinsons concern the constitutionality of Bankruptcy Code § 522(b)(1) which authorizes states to “opt out” of the federal exemption scheme, and A.R.S. Sec. 33-1133 in which Arizona invokes the option provided. ... We adopt the reasoning and rule of the Sullivan case and therefore affirm.

When a state opts out of federal exemptions under § 522(b), debtors may avoid liens only on property the state declares exempt.

Spears v. Thorp Credit, Inc. · filed 1984-09-26(b)

This Court has held in In re Pine, 717 F.2d 281, 284 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1711, 80 L.Ed.2d 183 (1984), that when a state has opted out under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b) of the application of the federal exemptions, “debtors may avoid liens only on that property which the states have declared to be exempt.”

Section 522(b)(1) allows a debtor to claim applicable state law exemptions when the state bars use of the federal exemptions.

In Re Sanders · filed 1987-04-06(b)(1)

This estate included the fire insurance proceeds due from the destroyed mobile home until claimed as exempt homestead by debt- or pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) and Florida law. See F.S.A. § 222.20. (Florida residents not entitled to federal exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b).)

Section 522(b)(1) permits Kansas to disallow the federal exemption election, so Kansas exemption law governs this debtor’s IRA claim.

In Re Galvin · filed 1990-11-20(b)(1)

The Court finds that the State of Kansas has exercised its option under the Bankruptcy Code to deny its residents the right to the federal exemptions as set out in 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(1); that the statutory authority for this opt-out is contained in 11 U.S.C. § 522(b) which provides in part as follows: ... Thus, in the case at bar, this Court must look to the Kansas exemption statutes for guidance.

Section 522(b)(1) permits a state to prohibit its residents from using the federal exemptions in § 522(d).

In Re Sullivan · filed 1981-06-01(b)(1)

The Court is of the opinion that Sec. 522(bXl) of Title 11 U.S.C. is constitutional in all respects.

Section 522(b)(1) allows a state to reject the federal exemption scheme and replace it with its own exemptions, but does not authorize a partial alteration of the federal scheme.

In Re Lee · filed 1982-09-16(b)(1)

California Code of Civil Procedure § 690(b) is not the type of option which § 522(b)(1) envisions. Congress intended for states, if they so choose, fully to reject the federal exemptions and in their place adopt their own. CCP § 690(b) is a partial veto of the federal exemptions. California does not reject the exemptions listed in 522(d) and substitute its own list of exemptions. Rather, California offers joint petitioners a choice of either the federal exemptions or those adopted by the state, but not both. This is in direct conflict with 522(m), which specifically guarantees joint petitioners the right each to select his or her exemption.

Section 522(b)(1) permits states to opt out of the federal exemptions, but state exemption classifications must remain within the federal exemption framework.

Rubenstein v. Sachs (In Re Locarno) · filed 1982-10-01(b)(1)

This Court agrees with Sullivan, supra, to the extent that it holds 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) to be a constitutional delegation of power to the states. ... In adopting the detailed exemption provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(d), Congress implicitly bound the states to adopt a corresponding scheme of exemptions.

Section 522(b)(1) allows Tennessee to bar federal exemptions, including in pending cases where a trustee timely objected to the debtor’s exemption election.

In re Frye · filed 1983-10-04(b)(1)

In each of the cases before the court, the trustee filed a timely objection to the exemption election and, therefore, the debtors’ exemption election was never finalized. This court will apply Rhodes II to all cases in which timely objections have been raised.

Section 522(b)(1) lets a state opt out of the federal exemption scheme and substitute its own exemptions.

In Re Godfrey · filed 1988-12-08(b)(1)

While the District Court in Snow did not consider specifically the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the Snow court’s observation that the State of Virginia exercises a right granted by the Bankruptcy Code to opt out of the federal exemption scheme, sufficiently addresses the debtor’s concern. See 92 B.R. at 156; 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1).

Section 522 provides federal exemptions and lets states opt out without requiring any particular state exemptions.

Matter of VanMeter · filed 1992-02-25(b)(1)

The debtor’s argument that pre-emption of the Indiana exemption statute would impair the state’s rights to opt out of the federal exemption scheme and thus impair the Bankruptcy Code, is premised upon the assumption that the Bankruptcy Code mandates the states to create specific exemption statutes. This simply is not so. There is a complete absence of an affirmative federal policy regarding what exemptions are available to a debtor under state law. Section 522 merely provides for federal exemptions and gives the states the option of opting out of the federal scheme by prohibiting its residents from taking advantage of the federal system of exemptions. Nothing in the Code prohibits a state from enacting a particular exemption or mandates it to create specific exemptions or even a particular level of exemptions.

Section 522(b)(1) lets a debtor choose federal exemptions or applicable state exemptions unless the state has opted out; Illinois’s opt out limits this debtor to Illinois exemptions.

In Re Schnabel · filed 1993-04-23(b)(1)

Under § 522(b)(1), unless a state has “opted out” of the federal exemption scheme, a debtor may choose either the exemptions listed in § 522(d) or applicable state and federal exemptions other than those listed in § 522(d). Since Illinois opted out of the federal scheme (see 735 ILCS 5/12-1201), the Debtor is limited to exemptions allowed under Illinois law.

Section 522(b)(1) permits states to bar debtors from using federal bankruptcy exemptions, and that choice does not violate equal protection.

Storer v. French (In re Storer) · filed 1995-07-13(b)(1)

Applying this deferential standard, we conclude that Bankruptcy Code § 522(b)(1) does not violate equal protection.

Section 522(b)(1) permits states to opt out of the federal exemptions; Louisiana debtors therefore could not use them to exempt personal injury proceeds.

Wischan v. Adler (In re Wischan) · filed 1996-03-19(b)(1)

Louisiana, however, opted out of the federal exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). Not only that, but Louisiana does not provide an exemption for proceeds from a personal injury claim, for future medical expenses, or for future pain and suffering.

Section 522 allows states to opt out of federal exemptions, leaving state law to govern whether proceeds from exempt property are exempt.

Hoffmeister v. Super Chief Credit · filed 1996-10-03(b)(1), (b)(2)(A)

Section 522 allows the states to “opt out” of the federal exemption list, in which case state or local law will control the availability of exemptions. ... Accordingly, Kansas law governs the availability of any exemption in the proceeds of exempt personal property.

Section 522(b)(1) permits states to opt out of the federal exemptions without providing exemptions comparable to them.

Clark v. Appeal of Chicago Municipal Employees Credit Union · filed 1997-07-11(b)(1)

Indeed, the case law clearly reflects that the fresh start policy of the Bankruptcy Code does not require those states that have opted out of the federal exemptions to provide exemptions comparable, concomitant, or corresponding to the federal exemptions.

Section 522 permits a state to bar debtors from claiming the federal bankruptcy exemptions.

Sladek v. Zeman (In re Sladek) · filed 2001-10-11(b)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 522 sets forth the federal exemptions that are available to a debtor unless the law of the particular state applicable to the debtor specifically provides the federal exemptions do not apply. This is precisely the case in Colorado.

Section 522(f) permits avoidance of judicial liens but not Connecticut mechanic’s liens, which are statutory liens arising automatically by force of state law.

Reardon v. DeGregorio (In Re Reardon) · filed 1981-04-21§ 522(f)

mechanic’s liens are not judicial liens, they are statutory liens.

A debtor must affirmatively commence a section 522(f) lien-avoidance action before the discharge hearing; waiting until after discharge bars the motion.

Associates Financial Services of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Porter (In Re Porter) · filed 1981-04-24§ 522(f)

the debtors’ lien avoidance powers under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) are permissive in nature and require that the debtor commence an action, prior to the discharge hearing, in order to exercise them.

Section 522(f) is unconstitutional as applied to a pre-enactment security interest because retroactive avoidance destroys the creditor’s vested property right.

Southern Discount Co. v. Howison (In re Howison) · filed 1981-04-24§ 522(f)(2)

I feel constrained to follow the decision of the Tenth Circuit in Rodrock and to hold the retroactive application of § 522(f) to be unconstitutional in this case.

A contingent future right to levy on tenancy-by-the-entirety property does not defeat the debtor’s section 522(b)(2)(B) exemption when the creditor lacks an immediate right to levy.

In Re Gibbons · filed 1982-02-05§ 522(b)(2)(B)

This contingent/future right to levy does not constitute a sufficient interest to deprive a debtor of the § 522(b)(2)(B) exemption.

When state residency rules would deny a debtor every exemption, the debtor may claim the federal exemptions under section 522(b) to preserve the Code’s fresh-start protection.

In Re Hawkins · filed 1981-12-04§ 522(b)

this, coupled with the certainty of congressional intent that the debtor have exemptions to enable a fresh start, permits only one conclusion, that the debtor under the circumstances of the instant case is entitled to federal exemptions under the alternative provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits an exemption for a property interest only when the debtor held it as a joint tenant or tenant by the entirety and applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process.

Wallace v. Meehan (In Re Meehan) · filed 1993-12-27(b)(2)(B)

Section 522(b)(2)(B) applies only when the debtor holds his or her interest as a joint tenant or tenant by the entirety.

A judicial lien impairs a tenancy-by-the-entirety exemption under § 522(f)(1) if it could attach to the property after the tenancy dissolves, even though it cannot be enforced while the tenancy continues.

Massie v. Yamrose · filed 1994-08-25(f)(1) and (b)(2)(B)

If it is not avoided, the hen may be enforced against the property after the tenancy by the entirety dissolves. This would constitute an impairment of Appellant’s exemption; therefore, Appellant may avoid the hen pursuant to § 522(f)(1).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) does not exempt the debtor’s tenancy-by-the-entirety interest when the debtor cannot make the applicable Massachusetts election.

In Re Robbins · filed 1995-09-22(b)(2)(B)

If the Debtor is unable to make an election, the Debtor’s interest in the tenancy by the entirety is not exempt under section 522(b)(2)(B).

The court holds that Maryland tenancy-by-the-entirety property may be exempted from individual creditors, but not joint creditors, to the extent of joint claims.

In Re Ginn · filed 1995-10-02§ 522(b)(2)(B)

Since under Maryland law entireties property may be exempted from claims of individual creditors, but not joint creditors, the court holds that the Debtors may exempt their equity in entireties property under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B) to the extent that their equity in the property exceeds the total sum of all joint claims against both Debtors.

An entireties exemption under § 522(b)(2)(B) does not protect property from claims of joint creditors, so a joint creditor's judgment lien does not impair the exemption.

Fox v. NCNB National Bank (In re Fox) · filed 1997-08-05(b)(2)(B), (f)(1)(A)

NCNB’s judgment lien never impaired an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled but for the existence of the lien.

Under § 522(b)(2)(B), an entireties interest is exempt only to the extent it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, so state law determines the scope of the exemption.

In Re Hendricks · filed 1999-02-11§ 522(b)(2)(B)

Accordingly, Florida law determines to what extent TBE property is exempt.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest held as a tenant by the entirety to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law makes that interest exempt from creditor process, with the governing law determined by the situs of the asset.

McNeilly v. Geremia (In Re McNeilly) · filed 2000-06-21(b)(2)(B)

Unlike the state law governing exemption entitlements under subsection (A), the state law at play in § 522(b)(2)(B) is ... not “keyed into the situs of the debtor’s pre-petition domicile,” here Rhode Island, but is determined by “the situs of the asset that is held by a debtor in bankruptcy as a tenant by the entireties.”

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest held as a tenant by the entirety only to the extent that applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process.

In Re Walker · filed 2002-06-06(b)(2)(B)

So, if Ms. Walker holds the income tax refund as a tenant by the entirety, she may exempt the entire refund from her bankruptcy estate. ... Based upon the precedence in the Eighth Circuit and the evidence before me, I cannot, therefore, find that Mr. and Ms. Walker hold their 2001 income tax refund as tenants by the entirety. Accordingly, the tax refund at issue here is property of Ms. Walker’s bankruptcy estate, and it is not exempt as tenants-by-the-entirety property.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest in tenancy-by-the-entirety property to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process; in North Carolina, a trustee may sell it only for joint debts of both spouses.

In Re Knapp · filed 2002-10-02(b)(2)(B)

Pursuant to Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may exempt certain property from property of the estate. Section 522(b)(2)(B) provides “any interest in property in 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 interest 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). Consequently, according to applicable law in North Carolina, if one spouse files for bankruptcy, a trustee may sell property held as tenants by the entirety only if there are creditors in the case to whom both spouses are indebted.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits each spouse in a joint bankruptcy case to exempt a tenancy-by-the-entirety interest to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law protects it from individual creditors; joint administration or substantive consolidation does not defeat that exemption.

Case name unavailable · filed 2002-11-21(b)(2)(B)

Each spouse may exempt his or her interest in the entireties property "to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law," that is, the law of Virginia. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B). ... Thus, the presence of individual claims against either or both of the spouses in a joint case does not prevent the debtor spouses from exempting their interests in entireties property under § 522(b)(2)(B).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) protects a debtor’s possessory interest in tenancy-by-the-entirety property when that interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, while the debtor’s survivorship interest becomes part of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Arwood · filed 2003-02-04(b)(2)(B)

In summary, the only interests presently enjoyed by the Debtor in the Real Property owned jointly with his non-filing spouse as tenants by the entireties are a right of survivorship and a right of possession. By virtue of § 522(b)(2)(B), the only interest that became property of the Debt- or’s bankruptcy estate is his right of sur-vivorship in the Real Property. The Debtor does not have a vested homestead exemption in his survivorship interest in the Real Property. He does, however, have a contingent exemption in the Real Property that may only be realized if he survives his spouse and becomes fully vested in the Real Property.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) protects qualifying tenancy-by-the-entirety property when applicable Delaware law prevents the judgment from attaching.

In Re Kelly · filed 2002-12-23(b)(2)(B)

under Delaware law Staats’ judgment does not attach to the Property held by the Debtor and his wife as tenants by the entireties. Consequently, the Debtor’s claim that the property is exempt is well-founded on section 522(b)(2)(B).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) preserves an available tenancy-by-the-entirety exemption in a jointly administered case.

In Re Greathouse · filed 2003-06-12(b)(2)(B)

The ruling for which the Trustee argues would render this provision nugatory.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a tenancy-by-the-entirety exemption, but property remains in the bankruptcy estate when the debtor does not claim that exemption.

Coleman v. Community Trust Bank, N.A. (In Re Coleman) · filed 2003-09-30(b)(2)(B)

As a result, the properties held by Mrs. Coleman and her husband as tenants by the entirety is part of the bankruptcy estate and the Bankruptcy Court, thus, had jurisdiction over these properties to make the proper determination as to how these properties should be utilized to satisfy the debts of Mrs. Coleman.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest in property held as a tenancy by the entirety immediately before bankruptcy, even if the bankruptcy estate holds the postpetition interest as a tenancy in common; the exemption is limited to the extent the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In Re Spears · filed 2004-04-26(b)(2)(B)

However, as already discussed, the Section 522(b)(2)(B) exemption only requires the debtor to have owned the claimed interest as a tenant by the entirety immediately before the commencement of the case. That the bankruptcy estate’s succeeding interest in the property is held as a tenant in common, and not as a tenant by the entirety, is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether the Section 522(b)(2)(B) exemption is available or not.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest in tenancy-by-the-entirety property only to the extent state nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process; jointly incurred debts defeat the exemption under Missouri law.

Van Der Heide v. John v. LaBarge, Jr. · filed 1998-04-15(b)(2)(B)

Since the parties stipulate that Van Der Heide’s debts were jointly incurred with his wife, the property is not exempt from attachment by joint creditors.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest in entireties property only to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

Walsh v. Gregorchik (In Re Gregorchik) · filed 2004-06-02(b)(2)(B)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the engagement ring and wedding band are not entireties property and that debtor therefore may not exempt them pursuant to § 522(b)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) permits a debtor to exempt tenancy-by-the-entirety property to the extent applicable state law makes it exempt from process; once properly exempted, the property is no longer part of the bankruptcy estate subject to trustee administration.

Lewis v. Harlin (In Re Harlin) · filed 2005-06-06(b)(2)(B)

Once entireties property is brought into a bankruptcy estate, a “debtor may exempt [entireties] property from property of the estate” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522. ... The Court overruled the Trustee’s objection finding no grounds on which to deny the exemption. As- a result of this ruling, Debtor’s entireties interest in the marital residence was properly exempted and was no longer property of the estate subject to administration by the Trustee.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) uses the domiciliary state's exemption law in an opt-out state to determine whether tenancy-by-the-entirety property is exempt, so non-homestead property in another state is not protected.

In Re Giffune · filed 2006-05-31(b)(2)(B)

The Court finds that the application of § 522(b)(2) to the facts in this matter effectively makes the law of the domiciliary state the controlling law for purposes of both §§ 522(b)(2)(A) and (B). Although § 522(b)(2)(B) does not expressly reference a debtor’s domicile state as § 522(b)(2)(A) does, the federal exemption is decidedly dependent on state law. ... Thus, the Court concludes that “applicable nonbankruptcy law” referenced in § 522(b)(2)(B) is tied to exemptions allowable in the relevant state opting out of the federal exemptions, which in this case is Illinois. ... Thus, the Debtor may not properly claim exemptions in those properties under § 522(b)(2)(B).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) allows a debtor to exempt a tenancy-by-the-entirety interest only to the extent the interest is immune from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, and § 522(l) permits a Chapter 7 trustee as a party in interest to object to an improperly claimed exemption.

In Re Guzior · filed 2006-08-23(b)(2)(B), (l)

Therefore, the Court holds that a chapter 7 trustee may object to a debtor’s claimed exemption of an entireties interest under § 522(b)(2)(B) as a “party in interest” in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 522(l) and Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4003(b). ... There are two parts a debtor must establish in order to have an allowed exemption of a tenancy by the entirety property interest. Under the first part, a debtor must hold an interest in property as a tenant by the entirety at the time she commenced her bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B). Once this part is proven, the second part of § 522(b)(2)(B) limits a debtor’s entireties exemption “to the extent such interest as a tenant by the entirety ... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2)(B).

Section 522(b)(2)(B) exempts a debtor’s interest held as a joint tenant or tenant by the entirety only to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest, and the exemption does not apply when the interest was not so held immediately before bankruptcy.

In Re McDonald · filed 2006-10-05(b) and (b)(2)(B)

Subsections (b) and (b)(2)(B) of § 522 combine to provide an exemption for property “in which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety or a joint tenant to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” ... Based on this stipulation, it is clear that §§ 522(b) and (2)(B) are completely inapplicable in this case.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) exempts a debtor’s interest in tenancy-by-the-entirety property to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process; under Michigan law, the entire interest is exempt from individual creditors even when joint creditors may reach it.

In re: Alan Raynard v. · filed 2006-10-25(b)(2)(B)

The bankruptcy court erred when it limited the language “to the extent that” in section 522(b)(2)(B) to a dollar amount. ... The bankruptcy court failed to realize that entireties property is fully exempt from the claims of individual creditors under all circumstances. That is the extent to which it is exempt.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts property held in a tenancy by the entireties when the debtor had an interest in it immediately before filing and applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process, even if the property is not homestead property or the debtor's domicile.

In Re Schwarz · filed 2007-01-30(b)(3)(B)

This exemption provision applies by its clear and unambiguous terms not merely to homestead property or to property that is the debtor’s domicile, but to all property owned by a debtor in a tenancy by the entireties, if such property is exempt from process under state law. ... I conclude that he can. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B) exempts property owned under a tenancy by the entireties if the debtor had “any interest in [that] property ... immediately before the commencement of the case” if the property at issue would be “exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.”

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest in entireties property only to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, so property reachable by joint creditors is not exempt.

In Re Kenneth E. Brannon, Kathy Fick Sippola, in 05-4600. In Re Thomas Michael Lewis, Debtors. Thomas Michael Lewis Sher · filed 2007-02-07(b)(3)(B)

Where spouses are joint debtors they may not claim the general exemption in § 522(b)(3)(B) for property they hold by the entireties. ... We thus concluded, “In this respect at least, such property is not exempt from process in Pennsylvania.”

Section 522(b)(3)(B) allows a debtor to exclude an interest in entireties property from the bankruptcy estate only to the extent that applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process.

In Re Stewart · filed 2007-03-20(b)(3)(B)

Further, § 522(b)(3)(B) of BAPCPA authorizes a debtor to exclude from his/her bankruptcy estate, “any interest in property in which debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety .... to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety .... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B) (2007). ... Based upon the facts of the instant case, the Court agrees with Trustee’s position that to allow the properties at issue to retain tenancy by the entirety status would amount to putting form over substance. ... Therefore, the Court will sustain Trustee’s Objection to Debtor’s claim of exemptions concerning the properties at issue.

Section 522(b)(2)(B) exempts a debtor's interest in entireties property to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process; here, the property was wholly exempt because there were no joint creditors.

Logan v. Williams (In Re Williams) · filed 2008-03-17(b)(2)(B)

Section 522(b)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code “exempts from the bankruptcy estate ‘any interest in property in which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety’ to the extent that the interest ‘is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.’” ... Entireties property is exempt from the bankruptcy estate if there are no joint creditors. ... As husband and wife on the petition date, the debtor and his non-filing spouse owned the Property as tenants by the entirety. Because there were no joint creditors, the Property was an asset wholly exemptible from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate on the petition date.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) allows a debtor to exempt property held with a non-debtor spouse as tenants by the entirety under applicable state law, including property transferred to a jointly controlled revocable trust when the transfer does not sever the entireties restrictions.

In Re Bellingroehr · filed 2009-03-18(b)(3)(B)

Section 522(b)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code exempts property held with a non-debtor spouse as tenants by the entirety under applicable state law. ... Consequently, because the Trust in this case possesses the essential restrictions against severability and transferability as entireties property possesses, I find that the Bellingroehrs did not sever the tenancy by transferring the entireties property into the Trust. Mrs. Bellingroehr may, therefore, claim entireties exemptions in the Trust assets in the same manner as she could have had they not been transferred to the Trust.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts a debtor’s interest in tenancy-by-the-entireties property when that property is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

Allan v. Putnam County National Bank (In Re Allan) · filed 2010-07-20(b)(3)(B)

Further, § 522(b)(3)(B) specifically provides an exemption for tenancy the entirety property which “... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, I find that the Debtor could exempt his interest in the Pennsylvania property, held as a tenancy by the entirety, from the claim of the Bank which is solely against the Debtor.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest held as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant only to the extent that applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process.

In Re Watford · filed 2010-04-13(b)(3)(B)

Under Georgia law, this deed created a tenancy in common. Such interest is not exempt under section 522(b)(3)(B).

Section 522(d) does not protect property held as a tenancy by the entireties when the debtor elects the federal exemptions, while § 522(d)(1) permits an exemption for qualifying real or personal property used as a residence.

Boyd v. Petrie · filed 2010-05-06(d) and (d)(1)

Thus, when a debtor has an interest in entireties property and selects the federal exemptions, the entireties property is analyzed as if it was a tenancy in common with the debtor’s interest in that tenancy in common subject to the claims of the debtor’s individual and joint creditors.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor using the state-exemption option to exempt an interest held as a tenant by the entirety immediately before bankruptcy, including the accompanying right of survivorship, when that interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In Re Bradby · filed 2011-04-11(b)(3)(B)

If the property is claimed as exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B), however, the tenancy by entirety property along with all the accompanying rights— including the right of survivorship — is reclaimed by the debtor and is no longer property of the bankruptcy estate. ... In that instance, upon the death of the non-debtor spouse, the property maintains its exempted status because § 522(b)(3)(B) provides that the property that is exempt is the interest that the debtor had “immediately before the commencement of the case.”

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits an individual debtor to exempt entirety or joint-tenancy property to the extent it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law; whether a joint tax refund qualifies is determined under state law, subject to a rebuttable presumption and the trustee's burden of proof.

In re Newcomb · filed 2012-12-04(b)(3)(B)

The Bankruptcy Code permits an individual debtor to exempt from property of the estate “any interest in property in 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 interest as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). ... This Court holds that the determination of whether a debtor and his non-filing spouse may claim a joint tax refund as exempt tenancy by the entirety property must be determined under applicable state law. ... The presumption operates to shift the burden of proof to the trustee to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the debtor and his spouse did not intend their joint tax refund to be tenancy by the entirety property.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest in tenancy-by-the-entirety property only to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law; value beyond the claimed exemption remains property of the estate for joint creditors.

In re James · filed 2013-10-10(b)(3)(B)

Section 522(b)(3)(B), the statutory exemption in question, uses the term “interest in”; and, while it does not have a monetary cap, it does contain the limiting language that the exemption is limited “to the extent” that the interest is not subject to process under applicable nonbankruptcy law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). ... The court does not view the language of Section 522(b)(3)(B) as substantially different from those exemptions of “an interest in property, not to exceed” a specific value. ... To the extent that Mr. James has limited his exemption to the value of $260,000, his trustee may still seek to recover the value of the entirety interest, which remains property of the estate, in excess of his claimed exemption for the benefit of his joint creditors. ... In conclusion, therefore, the court will sustain the objection of Mr. James’ trustee to the exemption to the extent that there is value in the Condominium in excess of $260,000.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor using state exemptions to exempt an interest in property held as a tenancy by the entirety to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In re Pace · filed 2014-10-10(b)(3)(B)

In addition to exemptions under state law, a Mississippi debtor may also exempt his interest in property held as a tenant by the entirety to the extent that interest would have been exempt under non-bankruptcy law.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt tenancy-by-the-entirety property to the extent the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, subject to the trustee’s rights for joint debts.

In re Haines · filed 2015-04-14(b)(3)(B)

The distinction carries into bankruptcy in this way: in a bankruptcy case, a debtor may properly exempt TBE property but the Chapter 7 Trustee may invade the TBE property to the extent necessary to pay unsecured joint debts.

Section 522(3)(B) fixes the relevant tenancy-by-the-entirety or joint-tenant exemption interest as of immediately before commencement of the bankruptcy case.

In re Hamacher · filed 2015-07-27(3)(B)

Thus, consistent with that general principle, the very language of the applicable exemption statute itself, speaking as it does of the situation as of ... the commencement of the case, ... requires the conclusion Debtor here argues for.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts a debtor’s interest in tenancy-by-the-entirety property to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process.

Loventhal v. Edelson · filed 2016-12-21(b)(3)(B)

The bankruptcy code provides in 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B) that “any interest in property in which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety” is exempted in the bankruptcy proceeding “to the extent that such interest ... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law,” which so far as relates to this case is 735 ILCS 5/12-112.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts a debtor’s tenancy-by-the-entirety interest only to the extent that applicable nonbankruptcy law protects the property from process, so joint debts can reduce the exemption under Wyoming law.

Royal v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming - Cheyenne · filed 2017-11-21(b)(3)(B)

Section 522(b)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code 1 exempts from property of the estate any property of the debtor that is held in a tenancy by the entirety, to the extent that property is exempt from process under nonbankruptcy law (the “TBE” or “entireties” exemption). 2 Under Wyoming common law, property that is held by a married couple in a tenancy by the entirety can be claimed exempt by a debtor to the extent that the equity in the real property exceeds the amount of the couple’s joint debts. 3 Tenancy by the entirety property is not exempt from execution for the joint obligations of the husband and wife. 4 So, the extent of the TBE exemption under Wyoming law depends on the amount of joint claims against the husband and wife.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts contingent future interests in property held in tenancy by the entirety to the same extent that state law exempts the tenancy-by-the-entirety interest from forced sale.

In re Scott N. Jaffe · filed 2018-05-22(b)(3)(B)

In the context of this case, then, the statute provides that contingent future interests in property held in tenancy by the entirety are exempt from the bankruptcy estate to the same extent that the tenancy by the entirety is immune from forced sale under state law.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest in tenancy-by-the-entirety property only to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law; under Wyoming law, the exemption is reduced by debts owed jointly by both spouses.

Jennings v. Royal · filed 2018-09-14(b)(3)(B)

This is an appeal from a decision of the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) that affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order that the Debtor, Austin Fox Jennings, is entitled to claim an exemption in his entireties interest in real property ... but only to the extent that his joint entities interest exceeds the joint indebtedness of Jennings and his non-filing spouse. ... Although we are not required to defer to the BAP’s decision, we find it persuasive in all respects—the BAP recognized the relevant issues and properly applied the bankruptcy statutes and case law. ... The judgment of the bankruptcy court is affirmed.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) preserves tenancy-by-the-entirety property as exempt unless a joint creditor has the actual ability under applicable state law to levy it; a merely hypothetical ability is insufficient.

In re Collins · filed 2019-03-27(b)(3)(B)

The theoretical ability to levy joint property, under hypothetical facts that are not present, is insufficient to defeat the exemption and extinguish the non-filing spouse's entireties interest in the property.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt a tenancy-by-the-entirety interest to the extent it is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In re Anderson · filed 2019-06-10(b)(3)(B)

Specifically, § 522(b)(3)(B) allows a debtor to claim as exempt, any interest in property in which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety ... to the extent that such interest ... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) protects tenancy-by-the-entirety property only to the extent it is exempt from process under the law of the property's situs, and a joint obligation can defeat that protection without a prepetition judgment.

Stanley Lawrence DiStefano, Jr. · filed 2019-09-30(b)(3)(B)

The Court agrees with the above reasoning and thus concludes that the law of the situs, Hawaii, is the “applicable nonbankruptcy law” that controls. ... Without authority, the Debtor argues that the presence of a judgment is necessary to reach a Hawaiian TBE; the Court disagrees and relies on the reasoning of the above cases. Specifically, neither the plain language of the statute nor the Sawada decision require a judgment. ... Whether or not Endurance has a judgment has no impact on the TBE’s immunity because the joint action shattered the immunity long ago.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to claim property held as a tenancy by the entirety as exempt when applicable state law recognizes the exemption.

Dorothea Middlebrook Whitten · filed 2021-03-01(b)(3)(B)

In light of the totality of the evidence and the absence of the words “joint tenants” or “joint tenancy” in the deed, the Court is convinced the conveyance of the Property to Debtors was intended to establish a tenancy by the entirety. Debtor is entitled to claim the Property as exempt under § 522(b)(3)(B) and Florida law.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest held as a tenant by the entirety immediately before bankruptcy, but a divorce decree entered within 180 days after filing makes that exemption inapplicable.

New Falls Corporation v. Phillips · filed 2021-03-03(b)(3)(B)

Section 522(b)(3)(B) enables debtors to exempt from the bankruptcy estate “any interest in property in which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety….” ... While the intersection of § 541(a)(5)(B) and § 522(b)(3)(B) is not a well-trod area and New Falls offers no case law in support of its argument, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed the issue and held the post-petition entry of a “divorce decree within 180 days of the filing of the bankruptcy petition renders the section 522(b)[3](B) exemption inapplicable.” ... The Court finds the Fourth Circuit decision well-reasoned, and absent contrary authority in this Circuit, will sustain New Falls’ objection to Debtor’s § 522(b)(3)(B) exemption as to the Hiawatha Property and the Richbarn Property.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) does not independently exempt property held as a tenancy by the entirety; applicable nonbankruptcy law must exempt the interest from process.

Robert W. Egizii · filed 2021-07-13(b)(3)(B)

But his argument overlooks the qualifying condition of the provision that limits such exemptions only to tenancy by the entirety and joint tenancy properties that are “exempt from process under applicable nonbankrutcy law.” 11 U.S.C. §522(b)(3)(B). ... Section §522(b)(3)(B) does not create a complete exemption in and of itself. Rather, some nonbankruptcy law that exempts the tenancy by the entirety property from process must exist in order for §522(b)(3)(B) to have a meaningful impact in a particular case.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest held as a tenant by the entirety or joint tenant to the extent applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts that interest from process, including the law governing the state where real property is located.

Robert W. Egizii · filed 2021-08-09(b)(3)(B)

Florida law is, without question, the relevant, applicable nonbankruptcy law that should be applied in considering the Debtor’s claim of exemption under §522(b)(3)(B). ... Further, Florida common law clearly exempts the Fort Lauderdale condominium from process and from collection efforts by the creditors of only one of the spouses. Thus, the Debtor may claim the Fort Lauderdale condominium as fully exempt under §522(b)(3)(B).

Section 522(b)(3)(B) allows a debtor to exempt an interest in property held as a tenant by the entirety to the extent the interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

A/C Supply, Inc. v. Botsay · filed 2022-01-11(b)(3)(B)

It follows that a Mississippi debtor’s interest in property held by the entirety is also exempt under the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), (b)(3)(B) (providing that debtor may exempt interest as tenant by entirety “to the extent that such interest . . . is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law”); see also In re Dixon, 2011 Bankr. Lexis 5680, at *13 (“As used in 522(b)(3)(B), ‘exempt from process,’ means that under state law the property at issue is immune from the collection efforts of creditors.”)

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits exemption of tenancy-by-the-entirety property only to the extent the debtor’s interest is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law, and an established creditor lien is not required.

IN RE: RONALD LEE MORGAN · filed 2022-08-12(b)(3)(B)

However, Section 522(b)(3)(B) of the bankruptcy code does not require a creditor to have an established lien.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) exempts a debtor's tenancy-by-the-entirety or joint-tenancy interest only to the extent that applicable nonbankruptcy law exempts it from process, and § 522(f) cannot avoid a lien absent an impaired exemption.

Sam M Mirian · filed 2023-11-08(b)(3)(B), (f)

In fact, the exemption described in §522(b)(3)(B) does not apply when the subject property is in New York. ... The Debtor is simply not entitled to claim an exemption equal to half the value of the Property, or any exemption at all under §522(b)(3)(B). ... Because the Debtor’s claimed exemption pursuant to § 522(b)(3)(B) is disallowed, the § 522(f) Motion must be denied. There can be no avoidance of liens if there is no exemption that the liens impair.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) permits a debtor to exempt an interest held in tenancy by the entirety only to the extent the interest is exempt from process under non-bankruptcy law.

Jeffrey R Barton · filed 2023-12-21(b)(3)(B)

Exemptions under Section 522(b) remain, including one that permits a debtor to exempt any interest in property that is held in a tenancy by the entirety, to the extent that the interest is exempt from process under non-bankruptcy law. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B). ... Because the record demonstrates that the Debtor and Jane have separate, not joint, membership interests in the Company, the presumption does not come into play. The Bartons do not hold their interests in the Company as tenants by the entirety.

Section 522(b)(3)(B) does not exempt tenancy-by-the-entirety property from an individual debtor’s bankruptcy estate to the extent of the debtor’s federal tax debt, even if the IRS has not yet obtained or perfected a tax lien.

Morgan v. Bruton · filed 2024-04-17(b)(3)(B)

Nothing in Craft limits its holding to instances where the IRS has perfected a tax lien against the property. ... In conclusion, we hold that property owned as a tenancy by the entirety may not be exempted from an individual debtor’s bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(B) to the extent of the debtor’s tax debt to the IRS.