In Re Wengerd, 453 B.R. 243

Debtors filed a Chapter 7 petition on July 3, 2009, residing in a home in Hartville, Ohio, valued at $205,000 with $164,978.92 secured debt.
Debtors claimed an Ohio homestead exemption under § 2329.66(A)(1) for up to $40,400, claiming the property as their residence.
Pre-petition, Debtors entered into a contract to sell the home for $205,000 and closed the sale four days after filing.
Post-sale proceeds were used for living expenses; Debtors moved to Hesston, Kansas, and did not plan to purchase another home.
Trustee objected to the homestead exemption and sought turnover of sale proceeds, arguing no intent to occupy post-petition negated the exemption.
Bankruptcy court sustained the Trustee’s objection, relying on the view that abandonment intent destroys the exemption; Panel disagreed and reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Debtors may claim the Ohio homestead exemption despite post-petition abandonment intent.	Wengerds contend intent to remain is not required; they were occupying as residence at filing.	Barbacci argues abandonment intent and actual abandonment negate exemption.	Exemption allowed; abandonment intent post-petition is irrelevant.

In re Cope, 80 B.R. 426 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1987) (exemption determined at petition date; continued residence supports exemption)
In re Pagan, 66 B.R. 196 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1986) (intent to vacate and absence post-filing defeats exemption)
In re Garland, 98 B.R. 767 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989) (specific intent to remain required under prior logic)
In re Alam, 359 B.R. 142 (6th Cir. BAP 2006) (liberal construing of exemptions favors debtor)
White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310 (1924) (exemptions determined on petition filing date)
Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305 (1991) (exempt property determined as of petition date)