Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Regenhardt- Homestead Exemption for Adjacent Property

Summary: Mr. and Mrs. Regenhardt sought to claim their residence and the adjacent property as fully exempt under the available homestead exemption, with the Trustee asserting that the adjacent property was not part of the homestead and only partially exempt using their wildcard. In reviewing the case law from the district, specifically In re Stox, No. 10-08123-8-RDD, 2011 WL 5902882, at *6 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 27, 2011) and In re Rogers, No. 16-02884-5-JNC, 2016 WL 5794707, at *4 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2016), the bankruptcy court reiterated that the controlling facts in determining whether adjacent property was part of the homestead “was the actual use of the subject properties through and as of the petition date, not a past simultaneous acquisition in one deed.” Based on testimony from Mr. Regenhardt regarding the uses of the adjacent property, which included an above-ground swimming pool, a portion of the driveway, a pet cemetery, a playground area, a volleyball court, duck and rabbit pens and a fence bordering the neighbors, the court held that this established that the adjacent lot was actually used as part of the homestead. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Regenhardt- Homestead Exemption for Adjacent Property