516 B.R. 476
Bankr. N.D. Ohio2014Background
- Debtor William C. Aubiel filed Chapter 7 on Sept. 13, 2013 and listed a 46' Sea Ray boat (valued $60,000) docked at Pier A, Sandusky (Erie County) as his residence and claimed an Ohio homestead exemption in the boat.
- Trustee timely objected and moved for turnover, alleging the boat was not Debtor’s residence at filing and pointing to undisclosed assets and inconsistent filings.
- Documentary evidence showed multiple addresses in Tuscarawas County (bank statements, tax return, certificate of documentation) and a 2012 Agreed Judgment Entry of Dissolution stating Debtor had been a resident of Tuscarawas County for the prior six months.
- Debtor testified he had lived aboard the boat for several years but conceded he did not live on it during winter (boat put into storage mid-November) and could not reconcile several Schedule I/J expense entries or omissions in schedules.
- Court found Debtor’s testimony undermined by inconsistent sworn statements, undisclosed property/transfers, and documentary evidence placing him in Tuscarawas County near the filing date; Trustee met burden to show boat was not Debtor’s residence at filing.
- Court sustained Trustee’s objection, granted turnover of the Sea Ray boat, and allowed Debtor 14 days to seek any alternate exemption (e.g., wildcard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trustee) | Defendant's Argument (Aubiel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sea Ray boat qualified as Debtor’s "residence" for Ohio homestead exemption at date of filing | Boat was not Debtor’s residence at filing; documentary evidence shows Tuscarawas County residence and lapses in habitation | Debtor lived aboard the boat for years and used it as his home | Held: Boat was not Debtor’s residence at filing; exemption disallowed |
| Whether Debtor’s contrary sworn statement in divorce proceeding bars his homestead claim (judicial estoppel) | Divorce judgment statement that Debtor resided in Tuscarawas County estops him from later claiming Erie County boat residence | Debtor did not show the prior statement was inadvertent or erroneous; claims of living aboard are consistent | Held: Judicial estoppel applies to bar inconsistent residence claim from divorce entry; it strongly undercuts Debtor’s position |
| Whether Trustee met burden to overcome exemption claim under Rule 4003(c) | Trustee must prove by preponderance; presented documentary and testimonial evidence contradicting Debtor | Debtor offered testimony and later correspondence showing some mail to marina and PO box near marina | Held: Trustee met burden by preponderance; Debtor’s testimony outweighed by contemporaneous documents and inconsistencies |
| Whether Debtor may assert other exemptions after homestead denial | Trustee sought turnover; any alternative exemption must be timely asserted | Debtor may still claim wildcard or other exemptions | Held: Trustee’s turnover motion granted; Debtor given 14 days to assert any additional exemption claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638 (procedural rules for claiming exemptions and objections)
- Daugherty v. Cent. Trust Co. of N.E. Ohio, N.A., 28 Ohio St.3d 441 (liberal construction of exemptions limited by statutory meaning)
- White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F.3d 472 (judicial estoppel doctrine applied by Sixth Circuit)
- Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761 (factors on judicial estoppel; inadvertence standard)
- Javery v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 741 F.3d 686 (excusing omissions as inadvertent in bankruptcy context)
- Mut. Bldg. & Invest. Co. v. Efros, 152 Ohio St. 369 (occupancy requirement for homestead under Ohio law)
- In re Wengerd, 453 B.R. 243 (date-of-filing controls homestead entitlement)
- In re Norris, 413 F.3d 526 (nontraditional dwellings and homestead issues)
- In re Pich, 253 B.R. 562 (judicial estoppel barred homestead claim in nontraditional dwelling)