468 B.R. 246
Bankr. W.D. Ky.2012Background
- Debtor David Kaplan filed Chapter 7 on August 29, 2011, listing Parkington Court and a 5 Acre Simpsonville Property.
- Debtor claimed a 522(d)(1) homestead exemption of $21,625 in the Simpsonville Property.
- Puckett held a judgment lien on the Simpsonville Property, asserting it impairs the homestead exemption.
- Debtor testified at the 341 Meeting that he resided at multiple places, including the Simpsonville Property, but Parkington Court is listed as his address on the petition and driver's license.
- Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found the Simpsonville Property was not used as a residence on petition date, thus not exempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpsonville Property qualifies as homestead under 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(1). | Puckett argues no exemption because Simpsonville not used as residence. | Kaplan contends the property is his residence and thus exempt. | Simpsonville Property not a homestead; exemption denied. |
| Whether Kaplan used Simpsonville Property as a residence at the petition date. | Residence requirement not met; debtor did not actually reside there. | Debtor resided there intermittently and intended to reside. | Not a residence; not exempt. |
| If exempt, to what extent does the lien impair the exemption and is it avoidable under 522(f). | Lien impairment should be recognized to the extent of impairment; lien avoidable. | Even if exemption exists, lien only avoids to extent it impairs; not voided entirely. | Lien avoidance denied because no exempted property to impair. |
| Burden of proof for exemption objection under Rule 4003(c) and related standards. | Objection targets lack of entitlement; burden on objector. | Debtor bears burden to prove exemption claims. | Objection sustained; exemption not established; lien avoidance denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Makoroff v. Buick (In re Buick), 237 B.R. 607 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1999) (defines residence for homestead; state-law-based homestead concept)
- Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993) (homestead defined by state law; 11 U.S.C. 522(d) context)
- Williams v. Evans' Adm'r, 56 S.W.2d 710 (Ky. 1933) (establishes Kentucky criteria for homestead by intent and occupancy)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 20 S.W.2d 734 (Ky. 1929) (intent to reside must be coupled with actual residence and conduct)
- Tyler's Ex'r v. Williamson, 36 S.W.2d 34 (Ky. 1931) (requires actual residence and intention to reside for homestead)
- Higgins v. Higgins, 78 S.W. 1124 (Ky. 1904) (mere intent to reside is insufficient without actual residence)