Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a recently published decision, In re Masingale, 644 B.R. 530 (9th Cir. BAP 2022), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the BAP) held that in the absence of a timely objection, debtors who claimed a homestead exemption of "100% of FMV" in their residence had a valid exemption claim for the full fair market value of the property, including post-petition appreciation. The fact that the claimed exemption far exceeded the applicable statutory limit, or that the Chapter 7 trustee never had an opportunity to object, did not change the outcome as the BAP found that the lack of a timely objection barred any challenge to the exemption.
In 2015, Mr. and Mrs. Masingale filed a Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The Masingales owned residential real property in Greenacres, Washington. In their schedules, the debtors listed their home as having a value of $165,430, with a mortgage lien against the property in the amount of $130,724. They also scheduled a homestead exemption in the property under Section 522(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code for "100% of FMV." No creditor or interested party objected to this claimed exemption, let alone within 30 days after the conclusion of the Masingales' November 2015 meeting of creditors, as required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the bankruptcy rules). Mr. Masingale later passed away in July 2016.
The bankruptcy court confirmed Mrs. Masingale's Chapter 11 plan in August 2017. Over a year later, in November 2018, the bankruptcy court converted the case to Chapter 7. Mrs. Masingale filed a motion to compel the Chapter 7 trustee of her bankruptcy estate to abandon her home, arguing that "100% of FMV," i.e., the entire fair market value of the property, was exempt because no one had objected to the scheduled homestead exemption. The trustee objected to her motion, arguing that the statutory basis for the exemption, Section 522(d)(1), capped the allowed exemption amount at $45,950, with any post-petition appreciation inuring to the benefit of the estate. The state of Washington, a creditor in the case, also objected, raising additional arguments. The trustee, in turn, filed a motion to sell the home, to which Mrs. Masingale objected.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.