667 B.R. 839
Bankr. N.D. Ohio2025Background
- Kimberly Ann Chapman (Debtor) filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Northern District of Ohio.
- The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to the Debtor’s claimed exemptions in two separate parcels of real property: one parcel occupied by Debtor and another occupied by her dependent.
- Debtor cited Ohio’s homestead exemption statute, O.R.C. §2329.66(A)(1)(b), as the basis for claiming an exemption in both parcels.
- Both parties agreed that there were no disputed facts; the dispute is solely a matter of statutory interpretation.
- The issue centers on whether the statute allows a single debtor to claim multiple homestead exemptions for separate properties occupied by herself and her dependent, or limits her to only one parcel.
Issues
| Issue | Chapman's Argument | Trustee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether O.R.C. §2329.66(A)(1)(b) allows multiple homestead exemptions for a single debtor (for both a debtor and dependent's residences) | Statute permits exemption for both debtor’s residence and one used by her dependent | Statute limits exemption to only one parcel, even if used by dependent | Exemption limited to one parcel only |
Key Cases Cited
- Garden City Osteopathic Hosp. v. HBE Corp., 55 F.3d 1126 (6th Cir. 1995) (federal courts must ascertain state law from all relevant data if state’s highest court is silent)
- Daugherty v. Cent. Trust Co. of Northeastern Ohio, N.A., 28 Ohio St.3d 441 (Ohio 1986) (exemption statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of debtor)
- Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Antonelli, 29 Ohio St.3d 9 (Ohio 1987) (exemptions are strictly limited to the statutory language)
- In re Williams, 345 B.R. 853 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006) (homestead exemption is limited to one parcel)