From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ashley

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island
Sep 7, 2000
BK No. 99-13185 (Bankr. D.R.I. Sep. 7, 2000)

Summary

relying on Strandberg and holding that: "Because a debt owing to a federally insured deposit taking institution is not one of the Section 522(c) exceptions, the Debtors' exemption is unaffected and must be allowed as claimed"

Summary of this case from In re Homonoff

Opinion

BK No. 99-13185.

September 7, 2000.

Michael 0. Carley, Esq., Attorney for Debtors, 1206 Main Street, West Warwick, RI 02893

David B. Hathaway, Esq., Chapter 7 Trustee, 4172 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02818


ORDER OVERRULING TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO EXEMPTIONS


Before the Court is the Chapter 7 Trustee's Objection to the Debtors' claimed homestead exemption under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-26-4.1 (the "Homestead Act"). The Trustee seeks to enforce an exception enumerated in the Homestead Act which withholds the exemption from debts owing to a federally insured deposit taking institution. The statute states:

In addition to the property exempt from attachment as set forth in § 9-26-4, an estate of homestead to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in the land and buildings may be acquired pursuant to this section by an owner or owners of a home or one or all who rightfully possess the premise by lease or otherwise, and who occupy or intend to occupy said home as a principal residence. Said estate shall be exempt from the laws of attachment, levy on execution and sale for payment of debts or legacies except in the following cases:

. . .

(7) For a debt heretofore or hereafter owing to a federally insured deposit taking institution or a person regulated or licensed under title 19.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-26-4.1.

We have on this same day, in more detail, dealt with a similar issue in In re Strandberg, B.K. No. 99-11012 (Bankr. D.R.I. Sept. 7, 2000), where we followed the First Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Patriot Portfolio, LLC v. Weinstein (In re Weinstein), 164 F.3d 677 (1st Cir. 1999), and said "the Rhode Island Homestead Act is preempted by Section 522 (c), and that the only debts for which the debtor's exempt property is liable are those enumerated in subsections (1)-(3) of Section 522 (c). Weinstein, 164 F.3d at 682-83." Strandberg, slip op. at 8. Because a debt owing to a federally insured deposit taking institution is not one of the Section 522 (c) exceptions, the Debtors' exemption is unaffected and must be allowed as claimed.

Accordingly, the Trustee's Objection to the claimed exemption is OVERRULED.

Enter judgment consistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

In re Ashley

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island
Sep 7, 2000
BK No. 99-13185 (Bankr. D.R.I. Sep. 7, 2000)

relying on Strandberg and holding that: "Because a debt owing to a federally insured deposit taking institution is not one of the Section 522(c) exceptions, the Debtors' exemption is unaffected and must be allowed as claimed"

Summary of this case from In re Homonoff
Case details for

In re Ashley

Case Details

Full title:In re DONALD F. ASHLEY, JR. and BRIGETTE ASHLEY, Debtors

Court:United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island

Date published: Sep 7, 2000

Citations

BK No. 99-13185 (Bankr. D.R.I. Sep. 7, 2000)

Citing Cases

In re Homonoff

Again, because it is federal bankruptcy law, specifically Section 522(f), that makes Citizens' lien…