Robin Blount, 624 B.R. 590

Background

Debtor filed Chapter 13 on June 2, 2014, scheduled minimal bank balances ($5 and $10) but did not disclose two personal-injury actions (a 2013 vaginal-mesh case and a later automobile-accident case).
Debtor converted to Chapter 7 on July 15, 2016; Trustee filed a final report, case closed, and Debtor received a discharge; Debtor later filed the auto-accident suit in state court (June 14, 2017).
Trustee learned of both personal-injury suits post-closing; both settled (auto: $85,000 gross; mesh: $28,325.32 net to Debtor). Case was reopened May 9, 2019 and Debtor filed amended schedules claiming exemptions under 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(D) and §522(d)(5).
Trustee objected: (1) Debtor may not claim multiple §522(d)(11)(D) exemptions (only one statutory cap may be applied in aggregate), and (2) Debtor exceeded the §522(d)(5) exemption cap by failing to account for the full Susquehanna account balance ($1,821.27 on petition date) and a 2014 tax refund ($4,434) that partially belongs to the estate.
Debtor argued multiple §522(d)(11)(D) exemptions are permissible for separate injuries and that the Susquehanna balance and tax refund had been abandoned under §554(c) when the case closed.
Court heard argument and granted the Trustee’s motion: (a) §522(d)(11)(D) creates an aggregate monetary cap of $22,975 for payments on account of bodily injury (not multiple full-size exemptions), and (b) the Susquehanna account balance and the tax refund were not properly scheduled/abandoned (or abandonment was appropriately revoked) and therefore remain estate property subject to turnover unless properly exempted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Trustee)	Defendant's Argument (Debtor)	Held
Whether debtor may claim multiple §522(d)(11)(D) exemptions for separate personal-injury recoveries	§522(d)(11)(D) should be limited to a single monetary cap in the aggregate; debtor cannot stack full statutory amounts for multiple injuries	§522(d)(11)(D) permits an exemption for each separate payment/injury; multiple recoveries may each receive the statutory amount	Court: Adopted aggregate-cap reading (using §102(7)) — debtor may exempt payments on account of bodily injury up to a total of $22,975 (not multiple full exemptions)
Whether Susquehanna account balance and 2014 tax refund were abandoned under §554(c) and thus not estate property	Assets were not properly scheduled or were undervalued; even if technically abandoned, revocation of abandonment is appropriate given debtor’s failures and inequity to creditors	Trustee knew of the assets before closing so they were effectively abandoned under §554(c) and are no longer estate property	Court: Assets were not properly scheduled (Susquehanna undervalued; refund unscheduled) so they were not abandoned; in any event revocation of abandonment was appropriate — both remain property of the estate and may be administered unless validly exempted under §522(d)(5) up to statutory limits

Key Cases Cited

Christo v. Yellin (In re Christo), 192 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 1999) (analyzed whether §522(d)(11)(D) allows multiple exemptions; majority favored a single exemption interpretation)
Phillips, 485 B.R. 53 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) (applied §102(7) to read §522(d)(11)(D) as a monetary cap on aggregate payments for bodily injury)
Comeaux, 305 B.R. 802 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2003) (allowed multiple §522(d)(11)(D) exemptions; considered broader statutory context)
Daly, 344 B.R. 304 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2005) (adopted reasoning permitting multiple exemptions)
Kane v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (In re Kane), 628 F.3d 631 (3d Cir. 2010) (an asset must be properly scheduled to be abandoned under §554(c))
Hutchins v. LRS, 67 F.3d 40 (3d Cir. 1995) (scheduling requirement for abandonment)
LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Brinley, 547 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2008) (revocation of abandonment appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) analogues where equities justify relief)
Woods, 173 F.3d 770 (10th Cir. 1999) (distinguishes irrevocable abandonments under §§554(a)/(b) from §554(c) technical abandonments)