In re Salazar

15 Citing cases

  1. Massey v. Pappalardo (In re Massey)

    465 B.R. 720 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 22 times
    Recognizing that this approach “best recognizes the reasoning in Schwab....” (quoting Salazar, 449 B.R. at 897)

    As one bankruptcy court recently stated when confronted with the same situation, “[w]hat then?” In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890, 897 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2011). In resolving this issue, the court in Salazar acknowledged Moore's approach—an evidentiary hearing wherein the debtor must demonstrate a plausible basis for the claim of 100% of FMV—and then offered another tack:

  2. In re Ayobami

    CASE NO: 15-35488 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jul. 1, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    As cited by this Court in its Supplemental Memorandum Opinion that is the subject of this appeal, a contrary decision was issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Texas. In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2011). An earlier decision by the Northern District of Texas is largely consistent with this Court's decision. In re Moore, 442 B.R. 865 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2010). Moore and Salazar were each issued after Schwab, but before the new Official Form 106. Because there are conflicting decisions, even within this Circuit, the Court finds that certification is appropriate under this subsection.

  3. In re Luckham

    464 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that this passage “by way of example, [is] the type of language that would put parties on notice that the debtor intended to exempt an entire asset and not just a limited interest in the asset.”

    Credit Union (In re Herter), 456 B.R. 455, 466 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2011); In re Wiczek, 452 B.R. 762, 766 (Bankr.D.Minn.2011); In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890, 899 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2011); see also In re Massey, No. 41059–MSH, Order on Mot. to Recons. (Bankr. D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2011).

  4. In re Gregory

    487 B.R. 444 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that the trustee had no obligation to object within the deadline set by Rule 4003 in the context of an action "to retain any value beyond the value of the exempt interest claimed by the debtor" when the exemption was facially valid

    ); In re Hernandez, No. 10–01762, 2012 WL 2202931, at *3 (Bankr.D.P.R. June 14, 2012); In re Luckham, 464 B.R. 67, 77 (Bankr.D.Mass.2012); In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890, 897 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2011), In re Stoney, 445 B.R. 543, 552 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2011); In re Winchell, No. 10–05827, 2010 WL 5338054, at *1–2 (Bankr.E.D.Wash.

  5. In re Hernandez

    CASE NO. 10-01762 (ESL) (Bankr. D.P.R. Jun. 14, 2012)   Cited 3 times

    Id. at 722. The Massey court adopted the analysis in In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890 (Bankr. N.D.Tx. 2011), where the court posed two possible solutions to dealing with this type of claimed exemptions. First, the court could hold an evidentiary hearing on the value of the debtor's exemptions.

  6. In re Soto

    CASE NO. 13-02084 (ESL) (Bankr. D.P.R. Jul. 18, 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding that " debtor's claim of exemption without citing the specific statute serving as the basis for the exemption . . . is improper and insufficient"

    Id. at 722. The Massey Panel adopted the analysis in In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890 (Bankr. N.D.Tx. 2011), where the court posed two possible solutions to dealing with this type of claimed exemptions. First, the court may hold an evidentiary hearing on the value of the debtor's exemptions.

  7. In re Rivera

    CASE NO. 12-09036 (ESL) (Bankr. D.P.R. Jun. 10, 2013)

    Id. at 722. The Massey court adopted the analysis in In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890 (Bankr. N.D.Tx. 2011), where the court posed two possible solutions to dealing with this type of claimed exemptions. First, the court may hold an evidentiary hearing on the value of the debtor's exemptions.

  8. In re Rivera

    499 B.R. 175 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 722. The Massey court adopted the analysis in In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890 (Bankr.N.D.Tx.2011), where the court posed two possible solutions to dealing with this type of claimed exemptions. First, the court may hold an evidentiary hearing on the value of the debtor's exemptions.

  9. Levitz v. Alicia's Mexican Grille, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION H-19-3929 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Where the debtor exempts '"100% of FMV,' the debtor is stating that regardless the value in-fact at any time, he is asserting such full value as his exempt interest." In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890, 897 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2011). "Such a declaration will encourage the trustee to object promptly to the exemption if he wishes to challenge it and preserve for the estate any value in the asset beyond relevant statutory limits. If the trustee fails to object, or if the trustee objects and the objection is overruled, the debtor will be entitled to exclude the full value of the asset.

  10. Williams v. Biesiada

    498 B.R. 746 (S.D. Tex. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, “[t]he estate does not relinquish property until the bankruptcy case is closed or the estate abandons the property under 11 U.S.C. § 554.” Gebhart, 621 F.3d at 1212;see also In re Salazar, 449 B.R. 890, 898–99 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2011) (various property); In re Evenson, No. 05–37920–svk, 2010 WL 4622188, at *3 (Bankr.E.D.Wis. Nov. 3, 2010) (a homestead and agricultural land). To the extent property may be worth more than the amount declared as its fair market value at the time a debtor's bankruptcy petition was filed, the estate is entitled to the current fair market value of that property, less the fair market value of the property when the bankruptcy petition was filed.