Lenore Albert v. Jeffrey Golden, 998 F.3d 1088

Debtor Lenore Albert filed Chapter 13 and claimed exemptions for state-court counterclaims against Ford Motor Credit and for accounts receivable, listing each as "$500,000 TBD" and citing Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 704.140, 704.210.
The Chapter 13 trustee and creditor Ford objected; the bankruptcy court sustained objections (Albert did not timely appeal those orders).
The case converted to Chapter 7; new trustee Jeffrey Golden moved to settle Albert’s counterclaims and Albert filed an amended schedule again claiming the same exemptions (later claiming $1.93 million for the counterclaims after settlement).
Golden objected that the amended exemptions were identical to those previously rejected and thus barred by issue/claim preclusion; he also argued the exemptions failed on the merits.
The bankruptcy court refused to consider Albert’s late filings, denied the amended exemptions as precluded, the BAP affirmed, and Albert appealed to this court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Law v. Siegel forbids courts from applying preclusion to deny repeatedly claimed exemptions	Albert: Law bars courts from denying exemptions on equitable grounds, so preclusion cannot be used to deny exemptions	Golden: Law did not address preclusion; preclusion is compatible with the Code and preserves finality	Held: Law does not abrogate preclusion; bankruptcy courts may invoke issue/claim preclusion to deny previously rejected exemptions
Whether issue preclusion barred relitigation of Albert’s amended exemptions	Albert: Amended claims differ (e.g., new $1.93M valuation); initial orders were not final	Golden: Amended exemptions are legally identical; earlier unappealed orders were final and binding	Held: Issue preclusion applied—the issues were identical, prior orders were final and Albert was a party, so relitigation was barred

Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014) (held bankruptcy courts cannot surcharge exemptions contrary to the Code; equitable powers constrained by statute)
In re Gilman, 887 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (final, unappealed orders denying exemptions have preclusive effect)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (defines and explains the purpose of issue preclusion)
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (res judicata binds parties despite possible error in the underlying judgment)
In re Reaves, 285 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2002) (debtor’s exemption rights measured as of the bankruptcy petition date)
Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966) (recognizes longstanding use of preclusion doctrines in bankruptcy)
SEC v. U.S. Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434 (1940) (bankruptcy courts guided by equitable doctrines unless inconsistent with statute)