470 B.R. 109
Bankr. D.P.R.2012Background
- Debtor filed Chapter 13 petition on August 2, 2011 and claimed a $20,791.78 homestead exemption on a real property where a house is under construction.
- Trustee objected that the property is not a residence and thus not exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(1).
- Court granted Trustee’s objection; Debtor moved for reconsideration alleging excusable neglect and ongoing construction funded by personal loans.
- Debtor asserts the property and surrounding lands are part of the residence and that her family uses them as part of their living space.
- Trustee argues Debtor does not live in the Real Property and the structure is not a residence; Debtor’s delay in answering was excusable neglect but merits review on reconsideration.
- Court grants reconsideration to the extent of excusable neglect but denies merits; it holds the Real Property is not Debtor’s residence and denies the homestead exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Debtor's motion for reconsideration is proper under Rule 60(b). | Lyamour contends excusable neglect justifies relief. | Trustee argues reconsideration is extraordinary and merits review under narrow standards. | Motion reviewed under Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect; granted for excusable neglect. |
| Whether the Real Property qualifies as a 'residence' under § 522(d)(1). | Debtor asserts the property and adjacent lands used with residence can be exempted. | Trustee contends Debtor does not reside there; primary residence is at Debtor's mother's house. | Real Property not Debtor's residence; cannot claim homestead exemption. |
| Whether the Trustee met burden to show exemption not properly claimed under 4003(c). | Trustee must prove the exemption is not properly claimed. | Debtor argues trustee failed to establish lack of occupancy and ownership. | Trustee satisfied burden; Debtor cannot claim exemption. |
| Whether Debtor's principal dwelling is the mother's house, affecting eligibility for exemptions on adjacent property. | Debtor claims use of adjacent lot constitutes part of residence. | Debtor does not own the Real Property or occupy it as principal dwelling. | Debtor's principal dwelling is the mother's house; contiguous property not exempt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect test for Rule 60(b) relief; equitable factors)
- Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1991) (timeliness of motions; excusable neglect standards)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (Rule 60(b)(6) exclusivity; exceptions to first five subsections)
- Ungar v. PLO, 599 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010) (Rule 60(b) framework; excusable neglect considerations)
- In re Edwards, 281 B.R. 439 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002) (burden of proof under 4003(c) for exemptions; bankruptcy context)
- In re Marcus, N/A (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004) (cases cited by debtor on homestead interpretation)
- Fiffy v. Nickless (In re Fiffy), 293 B.R. 550 (1st Cir. BAP 2003) (broad interpretations of homestead; distinguishable factuals)