Barnes v. ITT Financial Services (In Re Barnes)

117 B.R. 842, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1899, 1990 WL 126091
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland
DecidedJuly 18, 1990
Docket19-12695
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 117 B.R. 842 (Barnes v. ITT Financial Services (In Re Barnes)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnes v. ITT Financial Services (In Re Barnes), 117 B.R. 842, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1899, 1990 WL 126091 (Md. 1990).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART CREDITOR’S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO AVOID LIEN

JAMES F. SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtors filed this motion to avoid lien alleging that a lien claimed by ITT Financial Services on their household goods and furnishings is avoidable to the extent that it impairs an exemption which they have claimed. The creditor objected to the avoidance of its lien, arguing that the items subject to the lien, namely a videocassette recorder (“VCR”), a .22 pistol, 30-06 rifle, two shotguns and a .22 rifle are not household goods which the debtors may exempt.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The debtors filed the instant Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on March 31, 1989.

2. In their Schedule A-2 (“Creditors Holding Security”), the debtors listed ITT Financial Services as holding a claim in the amount of $2,200 secured by a lien on household goods to the extent of their market value of $415.

3. In their Schedule B-2 (“Personal Property”), the debtors listed inter alia as “tangible personal property of any other description” a “12 gage [sic] pump shotgun $75.00, 20 gage [sic] shotgun $10.00, 30-06 rifle $75.00, .22 Rifle $20.00, .22 pistol $50.00, 2 fishing rods, 2 tackle boxes $10.00, diamond engagement ring $350.00, 2 wedding bands $100.00.”

4. In an addendum to their Schedule B-2 entitled “HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND FURNITURE,” the debtors enumerated the following items:

ITEM

Furniture

$ 10.00 Beds

15.00 Bureaus

Bedroom Chairs

Room Chairs

Kitchen Chairs ^ O o

Living Room Chairs Vl p O o

Cabinets

Chairs

Outdoor Chairs

10.00 Desks

8.00 Lamps

50.00 Sofas

Tables

20.00 Coffee Tables

Den Tables

End Tables O o O CVI

Room Tables O o IQ

Outdoor Tables

Other

10.00 Kitchen

Air Conditioners

4.00 Clocks

Appliances

Clothes Dryer

Freezer

Hi Fi

1.00 Radios

10.00 Refrigerator

50.00 Stove

*844 Television &

Television [Color] $ 50.00

Toaster 4.00

Vacume [sic] Cleaner 20.00

Washer

Mixer 2.00

Blender 2.00

Iron 2.00

Stereos 50.00 to

Miscellaneous Goods

Diswasher [sic] 0

Carpets/Rugs 1 } — 1 o © o

Linens 4 sets sheets 00 o o

Total Value of Furniture and House-

$415.00 hold Goods

Addendum to Schedule B-2.

5. The debtors did not disclose a VCR within the foregoing designation of household goods.

6. In their Schedule B-4 (“Property Claimed as Exempt”), the debtors claimed the following property as exempt pursuant to Section 11-504 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code:

Type of Value Claimed

Property Description Statute As Exempt

Sch. B-2-a cash on hand subsection b5 $ 20.00

Sch. B-2-c household goods subsection b4 415.00

Sch. B-2-e wearing apparel subsection b5 170.25

Sch. B-2-b deposits subsection b5 145.00

Sch. B-2-h pet subsection b5 5.00

Sch. B-2-j office equipment subsection b5 50.00

Sch. B-2-m tangible property subsection b5 690.00

Sch. B-2-p money owed by

Jeff Barnes subsection b5 150.00

Sch. B-2-p wages (Tim) subsection b5 460.00

Sch. B-2-p pro rata tax

refund for 1989 subsection b5 + 150.00

TOTAL $2,255.25

7.The creditor’s objection is based on the allegation that the VCR and firearms are not household goods. But the debtors never claimed that the VCR and firearms were exempt as household goods. With respect to the VCR, they failed to disclose its existence in any of their schedules. As to the firearms, the debtors merely designated them in their schedules as “tangible property,” and not as “household goods.” In the instant motion to avoid lien, the debtors failed to enumerate the specific household goods and furnishings which were subject to the lien to be avoided. ISSUE

Strictly speaking, the issue in this case is not whether firearms and a VCR may be exempted by debtors as household *845 goods. The debtors’ claim of exemptions is now inviolate, the time having long passed for filing objections. Whatever property has been claimed by the debtors to be exempt, in whatever guise, is now exempt and is no longer property of the estate which the Chapter 7 trustee could administer on behalf of the estate’s creditors. The Court has no power to deny the debtors the exemptions which they have claimed without objection.

Rather, the issue to be decided now is whether the debtors may avoid a creditor’s lien which impairs an exemption which the debtors could have claimed in the subject property as household goods. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code governs the ability of debtors to avoid certain liens:

(f) Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions, the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is—
(1) a judicial lien; or
(2) a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-mon-ey security interest in any—
(A) household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel, appliances, books, animals, crops, musical instruments, or jewelry that are held primarily for the personal, family or household use of the debtor or a dependent of the debt- or;
(B) implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor; or
(C) professionally prescribed health aids for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.

11 U.S.C. § 522(f) (Supp. V 1987).

2.' Because the Maryland General Assembly has chosen to “opt out” of the Federal exemptions which debtors may claim under the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 522

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate of Hersh v. Schwartz
2011 Ohio 3994 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
DeBarros v. National City Bank (In re DeBarros)
275 B.R. 251 (D. Maryland, 2002)
In Re Brown
189 B.R. 653 (M.D. Louisiana, 1996)
In Re Szydlowski
186 B.R. 907 (N.D. Ohio, 1995)
In Re French
177 B.R. 568 (E.D. Tennessee, 1995)
In Re Farson
172 B.R. 17 (N.D. Ohio, 1994)
Matter of Raines
161 B.R. 548 (N.D. Georgia, 1993)
In Re Keeton
161 B.R. 410 (S.D. Ohio, 1993)
Matter of Slentz
157 B.R. 418 (N.D. Indiana, 1993)
In Re Brubaker
140 B.R. 460 (N.D. Ohio, 1992)
In Re Lynch
139 B.R. 868 (N.D. Ohio, 1992)
In Re Wheeler
140 B.R. 445 (N.D. Ohio, 1992)
McGreevy v. ITT Financial Services
130 B.R. 200 (D. Maryland, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 B.R. 842, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1899, 1990 WL 126091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-itt-financial-services-in-re-barnes-mdb-1990.