Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Panel Holds Lack of Timely Objection Bars Objection to Homestead Value Exemption
In a recently published decision, In re Masingale, 644 B.R. 530 (9th Cir. BAP 2022), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the BAP) held that in the absence of a timely objection, debtors who claimed a homestead exemption of "100% of FMV" in their residence had a valid exemption claim for the full fair market value of the property, including post-petition appreciation. The fact that the claimed exemption far exceeded the applicable statutory limit, or that the Chapter 7 trustee never had an opportunity to object, did not change the outcome as the BAP found that the lack of a timely objection barred any challenge to the exemption.
Background
In 2015, Mr. and Mrs. Masingale filed a Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The Masingales owned residential real property in Greenacres, Washington. In their schedules, the debtors listed their home as having a value of $165,430, with a mortgage lien against the property in the amount of $130,724. They also scheduled a homestead exemption in the property under Section 522(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code for "100% of FMV." No creditor or interested party objected to this claimed exemption, let alone within 30 days after the conclusion of the Masingales' November 2015 meeting of creditors, as required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the bankruptcy rules). Mr. Masingale later passed away in July 2016.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.