In re: James Wengerd v., 453 B.R. 243

Debtors filed a Chapter 7 petition on July 3, 2009, and resided in a Hartville, Ohio home valued at $205,000 with $164,978.92 secured debt.
They claimed a Ohio homestead exemption of $40,400 under Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(1) on the petition.
Prior to filing, a contract to sell the home for $205,000 was executed (May 27, 2009) and not disclosed in the petition or on Schedule E.
The sale closed on July 7, 2009; proceeds were used to pay the first and second mortgages, with $34,874.47 remaining.
Debtors moved to Hesston, Kansas, beginning July 9, 2009, and relocated by July 15, 2009, without purchasing a new residence.
The Trustee objected to the exemption and sought turnover of sale proceeds, leading to a bankruptcy-court decision sustaining the objection; the Panel reversed and held the exemption valid as of filing date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ohio’s homestead exemption requires continued intent to reside post-petition.	Wengerds: exemption should apply if they were using the Ohio home as residence at filing.	Trustee: intent to occupy is required; abandonment intent defeats exemption.	Intent to abandon post-petition is irrelevant; exemption determined at filing date.

In re Cope, 80 B.R. 426 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987) (residence status at filing controls exemption despite future abandonment)
In re Pagan, 66 B.R. 196 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1986) (debtor not entitled where no intent to remain and promptly vacates)
In re Garland, 98 B.R. 767 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989) (focus on intent to remain as element of exemption)
In re Alam, 359 B.R. 142 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of exemptions; standard for burden)
In re Stitt, 252 F.1 (6th Cir. 1918) (right to homestead exemption determined at bankruptcy adjudication date)
White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1924) (exemption rights determined as of filing, principle applied across era)