Michael Miszko, Jr.
DECISION ON COMPLAINT FOR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF A CLAIMED HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
This adversary proceeding was brought to declare the debtor's right to a homestead exemption and to compel the trustee in this Chapter 7 case to pay over to him that portion of the proceeds of the sale of a house to which a homestead exemption applies. The trustee opposes the debtor’s contention that a trustee may be compelled to distribute these funds to the debtor before the final distribution delineated under
FACTS
1. On October 24, 1984 the debtor, Michael J. Kaufman, filed with this court his petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.
2. Subsequently the case was converted by the debtor to one for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Code and later reconverted to a Chapter 7 liquidation pursuant to
3. In his petition the debtor claimed his homestead exemption under
4. The debtor’s principal residence, located at 12 Brook Lane, Scarsdale, New York, has been sold by the trustee pursuant to
5. The liens against the proceeds amount to approximately $238,246, leaving a balance of $56,754, which is subject to the homestead exemption and the claims of unsecured creditors.
6. On June 10, 1986, this court denied the debtor his discharge pursuant to
7. On October 9, 1986, the debtor initiated this action by service of a summons and complaint. Issue was joined on November 10, 1986. The complaint was heard on December 12, 1986. The adversary action sought to compel the trustee to turn over immediately $10,000 of the proceeds of the sale representing the debtor’s homestead exemption.
DISCUSSION
The issue of whether a debtor can compel a trustee to pay over a properly claimed and allowed homestead exemption prior to the final distribution to creditors at the close of the case appears to be a novel one. The cases decided under the former Bankruptcy Act are inapplicable because title to exempt property under the Act did not pass to the trustee in bankruptcy so that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction over property that was set apart as exempt.
Lockwood v. Exchange Bank of Fort Valley,
The Bankruptcy Court’s lack of jurisdiction over exempt property was reversed by the adoption of
Although state law specifies which assets may be exempt and to what extent, federal law prescribes the manner in which exemptions may be allowed and declares in
Subsection (2) of
Certainly the trustee in bankruptcy is entitled to investigate all aspects of the debtor’s financial condition, including the examination of his business books and records and past federal and state tax re
*394
turns. Moreover, the debtor was previously divorced and remarried. Therefore, the trustee must ascertain if the allowed exemption is subject to a nondischargeable alimony, maintenance or support claim with respect to which the allowed exemption would continue to be liable, as expressed in
In light of the fact that the debtor has not established that the trustee in bankruptcy has concluded these administrative duties and has been satisfied that there are no claimants under
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties in this case in accordance with
2. Paragraph 10 of the debtor’s complaint requesting the allowance of the debt- or’s homestead exemption is granted subject to any possible exception under
3. The balance of the debtor’s complaint to compel the trustee in this Chapter 7 case to turn over immediately to the debtor the $10,000 homestead exemption allowed under
SETTLE ORDER on notice.