In Re Holzapfel
2011 MT 257
Mont.2011Background
- Debtors Holzapfel filed a joint Chapter 7 case on December 13, 2010.
- Schedule B lists a 2006 Yamaha 4-wheel ATV; Schedule C claims exemption as Sporting Goods under § 25-13-609(1).
- Trustee objects to the exemption, arguing ATV is not a sporting good under § 25-13-609(1).
- Debtors urge liberal construction under Article XIII, §5 of the Montana Constitution and § 25-13-609(1) to exempt the ATV as a sporting good.
- Court notes ATV is a motor vehicle under Montana law and falls under the motor vehicle exemption § 25-13-609(2); ATV is a quadricycle defined as a motor vehicle with highway use eligibility.
- Conclusion: the ATV is not exempt as a sporting good; it may be exempt only under the motor vehicle provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATV qualifies as a sporting good under § 25-13-609(1). | Holzapfel argues liberal construction supports exemption as a sporting good. | Trustee argues ATV is a motor vehicle, not a sporting good, under § 25-13-609(2). | ATV is not exempt as a sporting good. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Maynard, 332 Mont. 485, 139 P.3d 803 (Mont. 2006) (liberal construction of exemptions when legislative intent uncertain)
- MacDonald v. Mercill, 714 P.2d 132, 220 Mont. 146 (Mont. 1986) (court must give effect to all provisions; liberal construction subject to plain meaning)
- In re Zimmermann, 46 P.3d 599, 309 Mont. 337 (Mont. 2002) (liberal construction of exemptions in the bankruptcy context)
- Neel v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Great Falls, 675 P.2d 96, 207 Mont. 376 (Mont. 1984) (exemption statutes construed liberally in favor of debtors)
- In re Mutchler, 95 B.R. 748 (D. Mont. 1989) (any item may be exempt up to $600 if aggregate limit not exceeded)