Summary: Ms. Roger inherited real property from her mother, which included a residence and a building originally used as a country store, which was subsequently renovated into a residential rental property. After obtaining a mortgage against the entire property, Ms. Rogers, with the consent of the lienholder, subdivided the residence and the rental properties. Upon filing Chapter 13, Ms.

Summary: Mr. and Mrs. Foley each had several life insurance policies which named as the beneficiary a testamentary trust created by virtually identical wills. These directed the estate trustee to use any income and principal from the trust “for the health, maintenance and support” of the surviving spouse or subsequently their son. A later provision, however, authorized the trustee to “compromise claims”.

Summary: The Debtor, 71 years old, was married until her husband died in 1999. At the time of his death, he was the sole owner of a house and land, purchased in 1962, with a mortgage signed by both the Debtor and her husband, and which the Debtor later inherited, pursuant to his will. Upon filing bankruptcy, the Debtor sought to claim the increased “widow’s” exemption of $60,000 in the property, based on N.C.G.S.

Summary: Effective February 23, 2011, federal regulations may have settled the question about whether federal benefits, including Social Security and VA benefits, that are exempt from garnishment or execution by judgment creditors and bankruptcy trustees retain that exempt status if commingled with other non-exempt funds. 31 C.F.R. § 212.3 applies to garnishment, which is defined to include “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment or other legal process” (Emphasis added), which should include actions by a bankruptcy trustee.

Summary: Husband and Wife filed Chapter 7, with the Wife claiming both an equitable interest in a 2006 Lexus, despite not being listed as an owner on the title, and claiming an exemption. The Trustee objected, relying on In re Horstman, 276 B.R. 80 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2002), where the bankruptcy court held that a debtor could not claim an exemption in a vehicle, titled in her husband’s name only, based on the definition of “marital property.” This proposition was expanded in In re Thams, No. 10–33089, 2011 WL 863293, at *4 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Mar.

Summary: In several related Chapter 7 cases, the Debtors exemptions included a provision relying on Schwab v. Reilly, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2652 (2010), that they “intend[ed] to claim 100% of Debtors’ interest and 100% fair market value in each and every item listed, irrespective of the actual value claimed as exempt.” Following objections by the Chapter 7 Trustee, the Debtors, still seeking to maximize their exemptions, amended their exemptions to include a provision that contemplated three separate scenarios: 1.

Summary: Around the time of the Confirmation of the Debtors’ plan, the Male Debtor was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Subsequently, he amended his schedules to disclose the personal injury claim and his exemptions to claim the d claimed the full $10,379.35 settlement as exempt property per N.C.G.S. § 1C-1601(a)(8). The Trustee failed to object to the exemption but did seek to have this amount determined to be disposable income. Relying heavily on In re Graham, 258 B.R. 286 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.

Summary: Dickerson filed Chapter 7 pro se, initially failing to disclose and exempt a pending lawsuit against Bell Partners for personal injuries and pecuniary losses.  The Debtor eventually claimed the lawsuit as fully exempt, but the Trustee objected to the exemption of an pecuniary losses Dickerson, the Trustee and Bell Partners subsequently agreed, both on the telephone and in emails, to settle the lawsuit for $15,000, consisting of $10,000 in exempt personal injury proceeds and $5,000 for pecuniary losses, that would be available for the bankruptcy estate.  Di

Summary:

The Debtor sought approval of the settlement of an Equitable Distribution, conducted in Maine, that would have allowed her to transfer funds into exempt IRAs, arguing that an Equitable Distribution  rights are not property rights and therefore not an asset of the bankruptcy estate.  The Trustee objected.

Summary: The Debtors are the owners of real property in Vandemere, North Carolina and a mobile home that sits at that location, but is  personal property.  The Debtors claimed both as exempt under their homestead.  A judgment creditor objected that this was not the residence of the Debtors and that the Debtors had not obtained the necessary permits to place the mobile home at the property. The Debtors testified that they were currently not residing on the property, partly because the Male Debtor required dialysis that was not available locally and also because