347 P.3d 41
Wash.2015Background
- Debtors Larry and Rose Wieber, domiciled in Washington, filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Western District of Washington.
- The Wiebers abandoned any Washington homestead claim in their Blaine residence (no equity) and instead claimed a homestead exemption for real property in Ketchikan, Alaska.
- Creditor Bruce Kiessling objected, arguing Washington’s homestead statute (chapter 6.13 RCW) does not apply extraterritorially.
- The federal bankruptcy court certified the question whether RCW 6.13.010–.240 applies to property located outside Washington.
- The Washington Supreme Court considered statutory text, the statutory scheme in Title 6 RCW (Enforcement of Judgments), and public-policy/conflict-of-laws concerns in deciding whether the homestead exemption applies extraterritorially.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington’s homestead exemption (ch. 6.13 RCW) applies to real property located outside Washington | Wiebers: RCW 6.13 is silent on extraterritoriality; by liberal construction and federal bankruptcy practice a Washington domiciliary should be able to exempt out-of-state homestead | Kiessling/State: Chapter 6.13 and related Title 6 provisions contain Washington-specific procedural and enforcement provisions (e.g., recording, court actions) that demonstrate the statute was intended to apply only within Washington | Held: No. Washington’s homestead exemption does not apply to property located in other states; the statute’s procedural scheme and Title 6 context indicate an in-state limitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Arrol, 170 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 1999) (applied California homestead law extraterritorially; emphasized liberal, pro-debtor construction)
- In re Drenttel, 403 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2005) (applied Minnesota homestead exemption to out-of-state property; relied on Arrol)
- In re Capps, 438 B.R. 668 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2010) (refused extraterritorial application of Idaho homestead law; cited policy against exemption shopping)
- In re Sipka, 149 B.R. 181 (D. Kan. 1992) (noted majority rule that state homestead exemptions generally do not extend to property in other states)