Seth Edward Bergman and Courtny Renee Bergman, 663 B.R. 768

Seth and Courtney Bergman, Chapter 13 debtors, filed for bankruptcy and claimed exemptions using Official Form 106C, Schedule C.
They claimed the “100% of fair market value, up to any applicable statutory limit” (100% FMV Box) for several assets, including their home and car.
The Chapter 13 trustee objected, asserting the debtors misused the 100% FMV Box and that the amounts claimed were unclear for assets with statutory exemption limits.
The trustee requested an evidentiary hearing to clarify the claimed amounts and asset values.
The court heard arguments regarding whether use of the 100% FMV Box is proper for both unlimited and dollar-limited exemptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of 100% FMV Box on Schedule C	Only proper for assets with unlimited exemption; use on limited exemptions is improper	Permitted as Form 106C and Supreme Court suggest its use, even with statutory limits	Debtors can use the 100% FMV Box, even for capped exemptions
Clarity of exemption amounts	Use of 100% FMV Box creates ambiguity in exemption values	Values can be determined by consulting Schedule C and statute amounts	Debtors must ensure clearness; here, the claimed amounts are sufficiently determinable
Removal of assets from estate	100% FMV Box is an improper attempt to remove value from estate	Only amount up to statutory cap can be exempted; no improper removal	100% FMV Box does not allow removal above statutory limits
Need for evidentiary hearing	Cannot determine exemption amounts without more evidence	No specific rebuttal stated; rely on provided values	Hearing granted to resolve valuations and claimed amounts

Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. 770 (2010) (trustee need not object to exemptions within statutory value limits; use of "100% FMV" is a red flag for review)
Barroso-Herrans v. Lugo-Mender (In re Barroso-Herrans), 524 F.3d 341 (1st Cir. 2008) (affirmed trustee is on notice by "100% FMV" language and must object if necessary)