441 B.R. 116
8th Cir. BAP2010Background
- Debtor Virgil Hurd, Jr. filed Chapter 7; trustee Moon objected to Debtor's exemption claim for a 1997 Wrangler Gooseneck 2 Horse Trailer valued at $3,000 under MO. Rev. Stat. § 513.430.1(6).
- Debtor claimed the entire $3,000 value of the camping trailer as exempt under § 513.430.1(6).
- Trailer was used as living quarters since 2008 after the Debtor was displaced by his ex-wife; it had electricity and water and was moved with Debtor's pickup.
- Trailer was parked on a friend’s property; Debtor paid the electric bill and received mail at the land address where the Trailer was parked.
- Debtor spent substantial time at his girlfriend’s house and used the Trailer to transport horses; trustee argued the Trailer was not Debtor's principal residence and not a mobile home under § 513.430.1(6).
- Bankruptcy court overruled the Trustee; on appeal the panel reversed, holding the Trailer is not a mobile home under § 513.430.1(6); analysis did not reach residence issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Trailer a 'mobile home' under § 513.430.1(6)? | Moon argues the Trailer does not meet the 'mobile home' threshold. | Hurd contends it qualifies as a mobile home used as principal residence. | Trailer not a mobile home under § 513.430.1(6). |
| If not a mobile home, may the Trailer be exempt under § 513.430.1(6)? | Moon contends exemption does not apply because not a mobile home. | Hurd relies on the statute’s text permitting exemption for a mobile home used as principal residence. | Exemption not permitted because the Trailer fails § 513.430.1(6) mobile-home requirement. |
| Did Debtor’s use as principal residence affect the outcome if the Trailer were a mobile home? | Moon argues residence status is irrelevant where it fails the mobile-home definition. | Hurd would rely on residence use to support exemption if it were a qualifying mobile home. | Not reached as Trailer not a mobile home. |
| Should the court consider § 513.475.1 homestead exemption if § 513.430.1(6) fails? | Moon could argue alternative state-based exemptions. | Hurd would prefer the broader homestead exemption, but the court finds it not applicable to a moving trailer. | Not applicable to Trailer under § 513.475.1. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norwest Bank Neb., N.A. v. Tveten (In re Tveten), 848 F.2d 871 (8th Cir. 1988) (state-exemption scope governs when debtor domiciles in opt-out state)
- In re Mwangi, 432 B.R. 812 (9th Cir. BAP 2010) (liberal exemptions policy and relation to federal exemptions)
- Meyers v. Johnson, 182 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (mobile/manufactured home considerations in Missouri)
- Ferrell Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Holloway, 954 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (possession rights to mobile/manufactured homes; chapter 700 context)
- Parker v. Parker (In re Parker), 25 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (jurisdiction/ownership implications for mobile home-related issues)