In re Aubiel, 534 B.R. 300

Debtor William C. Aubiel filed Chapter 7 on Sept. 13, 2013 and claimed a homestead exemption in a 46-foot Sea Ray boat listed as his "residential boat" on Schedule B.
Debtor previously transferred the marital home to his ex-wife in a 2012 dissolution and testified he began living full-time on the boat thereafter; petition listed a different mailing address (former marital home).
Trustee objected to the homestead exemption and sought turnover, arguing evidence showed Aubiel’s primary residence was elsewhere (mailing addresses on bank statements, tax return, boat title, unexplained rent/utilities on schedules, distance from business).
Bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing, found Trustee rebutted the presumption of a valid exemption, disbelieved Debtor’s testimony on credibility grounds, concluded the boat was not Debtor’s primary residence at filing, sustained the objection, and ordered turnover.
Debtor appealed, arguing (1) judicial estoppel was misapplied and (2) the court improperly imported a Florida homestead test; the panel affirmed on the basis that the factual finding (boat not primary residence) was not clearly erroneous.

Issue	Aubiel's Argument	Trustee's Argument	Held
Whether the Sea Ray boat qualified as Aubiel’s primary residence for Ohio homestead exemption	Boat was his principal dwelling; he lived on it after dissolution	Boat was not primary residence; objective indicia (mailing addresses, bank docs, schedules) show another residence	Boat was not Debtor’s primary residence; exemption disallowed and turnover ordered
Who bears burden and standard to reject claimed exemption	Debtor: exemption should be respected unless disproved	Trustee: must rebut prima facie exemption by preponderance; then Debtor must prove entitlement	Trustee rebutted; Debtor failed to prove residence; court applied correct burdens and standards
Credibility of Debtor’s testimony and supporting evidence	Debtor relied on his testimony and limited post-filing mail to show occupancy	Trustee emphasized inconsistencies and lack of contemporaneous evidence; pointed to Schedule inaccuracies	Bankruptcy court’s credibility finding credited Trustee and was entitled to deference; findings not clearly erroneous

Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (finality functional test for appealability)
Lindsey v. O’Brien, Tanski, Tanzer & Young, 86 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996) (orders resolving discrete bankruptcy disputes are appealable)
In re Zingale, 451 B.R. 412 (6th Cir. BAP 2011) (trustee’s objection to exemptions is a final, appealable order)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (trial-court credibility findings entitled to great deference on appeal)
In re Kimble, 344 B.R. 546 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2006) (discussing requirements for claiming homestead exemption and "residence" meaning)