670 B.R. 651
Bankr. D. Utah2025Background
- Debtors (the Correas) are a married couple living below Utah’s median income and reside full-time in a towable 2018 Flagstaff travel trailer.
- After selling their residence, they bought the trailer and placed it in a mobile home park in a fixed spot, paying monthly rent for the lot and utility services.
- The Flagstaff is equipped for full-time residence (plumbing, heating, AC, etc.) and has served as their permanent home; they have not used it for travel or recreation.
- The Debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and claimed the trailer as a homestead exemption under Utah Code § 78B-5-503.
- The Chapter 13 Trustee objected, arguing the trailer was a recreational vehicle and not a “mobile home” entitled to exemption.
- Parties stipulated to key facts and the court considered whether the Flagstaff is a "mobile home" under Utah statutory definitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a towable travel trailer a "mobile home" for homestead exemption purposes under Utah law? | Correa: Trailer meets statutory "mobile home" definition because it is a transportable structure with utilities, used as a permanent dwelling. | Trustee: Trailer is a recreational vehicle, not a structure, and should not be covered as a mobile home. | Yes; court finds the Flagstaff meets the statutory definition and qualifies for the exemption. |
| Does the trailer need to be permanently affixed to qualify as a "mobile home"? | Correa: Law does not require a permanent foundation. | Trustee: Implies permanent foundation or construction is required. | No; court interprets statute as allowing mobile homes without permanent foundations. |
| Should the court use alternative statutory definitions (Motor Vehicle Act/municipal codes) to define “mobile home”? | Correa: Definition incorporated by reference in the relevant exemption statute controls. | Trustee: Other statutes and codes provide more appropriate definitions. | No; court applies only the definition expressly incorporated by the Exemptions Act. |
| Does use as a family dwelling control, regardless of vehicle’s mobility? | Correa: Trailer is established as their home with a fixed address, utilities, etc. | Trustee: Mobility/vehicle classification outweighs residential use. | Yes; residential use in a fixed spot satisfies the statute’s requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- P.I.E. Emps. Fed. Credit Union v. Bass, 759 P.2d 1144 (Utah 1988) (Utah homestead exemption statutes should be liberally construed in favor of debtors)
- Panagopulos v. Manning, 69 P.2d 614 (Utah 1937) (Purpose of homestead laws is to protect families from destitution)
- In re Lampe, 331 F.3d 750 (10th Cir. 2003) (Exemption laws are to be construed liberally in favor of exemption)
- In re Stephens, 402 B.R. 1 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2009) (Homestead exemptions generally construed broadly for debtors)
- In re Busch, 294 B.R. 137 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2003) (Property interests in bankruptcy defined by state law)
- Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979) (State law defines property interests in bankruptcy)
- Fink v. O’Neil, 106 U.S. 272 (1882) (Exemptions should be liberally interpreted in favor of the debtor)
- In re Carlson, 303 B.R. 478 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2004) (Homestead exemption available even without land ownership under Utah law)