IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Certification from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington in NO. 90331-0
In the Matter of the Bankruptcy Petition of ENBANC
LARRY CHARLES WIEBER and ROSE WOUDE WIEBER, APR 0 2 2015 Filed - - -----
Debtor(s).
STEPHENS, J.-The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District
of Washington has asked us whether Washington's homestead exemption law,
chapter 6.13 RCW, applies extraterritorially to real property located in other states.
We answer this certi-fieEl-questien-in-the--neg-at-ive;---We-h01d-that-Washington.ls-- - -
homestead exemption law does not apply to real property outside of Washington.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The relevant facts in this case are undisputed. Debtors Larry and Rose Wieber
filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Washington. After abandoning any claim of homestead to their Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
residence in Blaine, Washington-in which they hold no equity-the Wiebers claimed
a homestead exemption for real property located in Ketchikan, Alaska.
Creditor Bruce Kiessling objected to the Wiebers' homestead exemption,
arguing that Washington's homestead exemption law has never been interpreted to
apply extraterritorially. The bankruptcy court found that the Wiebers were domiciled
in Washington, so Washington law governs the exemption question. Following a·
hearing, the bankruptcy court concluded that Washington's homestead exemption law
does not expressly indicate whether its terms apply to property located outside of
Washington. To resolve this issue, the court agreed to certify the following question to
this court: "Does the Washington homestead exemption law, RCW 6.13.010-.240,
apply extra-territorially to real property located in other states?" Order Certifying
Question to Wash. State Supreme Ct. at 3.
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we recognize that our interpretation of the homestead exemption
law is not limited to its application in bankruptcy proceedings. The homestead
exemption arises in proceedings involving probate, foreclosure, family law, and the
general enforcement of judgments. However, because this case arose through the
bankruptcy court, it is important to understand how homestead exemption laws relate
to federal bankruptcy law.
1. Homestead Exemptions in Bankruptcy Court
Bankruptcy filings create a bankruptcy estate consisting of the debtor's legal or
equitable interests in property. 11 U.S. C. § 541 (a). Debtors may claim certain property
-2- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
as exempt from the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1). They may choose
between federal exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d) and exemptions provided under
state law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2). If a debtor elects to assert a state's exemption, the
bankruptcy court looks to the forum state's law to determine the applicability of the
exemption.
Bankruptcy courts throughout the country have considered the extraterritorial
effect of state homestead exemption laws. The majority of jurisdictions decline
extraterritorial application of the homestead exemption to property located in another
state. See, e.g., WILLIAM H. BROWN, LAWRENCE R. AH:ERN III & NANCY F. MACLEAN,
BANKR. EXEMPTION MANUAL§ 4:7, at 95 (2011-2012 ed.) ("[T]he majority of courts
have held that one state cannot assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over property in other
states."); Dale Joseph Gilsinger, Extraterritorial Application of State's Homestead
Exemption Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code§ 522, 47 A.L.R. FED. 2D 335, § 2, at 343
(2010) ("State courts have repeatedly, and almost uniformly, held that a state's
homestead exemption only extends to property located within that state."); In re Sipka,
149 B.R. 181, 182 (D. Kan. 1992) (believing the "majority rule is correct" and
declining extraterritorial application ofKansas's homestead law).
In re Capps is illustrative of the majority rule. 438 B.R. 668 (Bankr. D. Idaho
2010). There, the court held that Idaho's homestead exemption law did not apply
extraterritorially to property located outside of Idaho. Id. at 672. Noting that Idaho
state courts had not addressed the issue, the bankruptcy court relied on the public policy
discouraging "'exemption shopping,"' as recognized by the bankruptcy code and
-3- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
Idaho's public policy protecting creditors' expectations. Id. While acknowledging that
some courts have allowed extraterritorial application of state homestead exemptions
where the statutes do not expressly prohibit it, the trial court in Capps reaffirmed its
previous holding in In re Halpin, 94 I.B.C.R. 197, 198, 1994 WL 594199 (Banlcr. D.
Idaho) that Idaho's exemption law does not allow debtors to claim a homestead in
another state. Id. at 672-73 (distinguishing In re Arrol, 170 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 1999)).
The Wiebers rely on the handful of decisions holding that a state's homestead
exemption law may apply extraterritorially to property located outside of that state if
the law does not expressly exclude such application. Arrol, 170 F.3d 934 (applying
California's homestead exemption law to a Michigan home); In re Drenttel, 403 F.3d
611 (8th Cir. 2005) (applying Minnesota's homestead exemption law to an Arizona
home); In re Stratton, 269 B.R. 716 (Bank:r. D. Or. 2001) (relying onArrol; applying
Oregon's homestead exemption law to a California home). The cases that support
extraterritorial application can be categorized in two groups: those based on policy and
those based on comparing homestead exemptions with similar laws that are expressly
limited to state residents.
Some courts reason that public policy supports extraterritorial application of a
state's homestead law. The most prominent of these policy-based cases is Arrol, in
which the court held that California's homestead exemption statute permitted debtors
to claim an exemption for a homestead located in Michigan. 170 F.3d at 936. First,
the court opined that the purpose of California's homestead exemption exists
independently from state boundaries, '"provid[ing] a place for the family and its
-4- Wieber, etux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
surviving members, where they may reside and enjoy the comforts of a home."' Id.
(alteration in original) (quoting Strangman v. Duke, 140 Cal. App. 2d 185, 190, 295
P.2d 12 (1956)). The court further reasoned that the homestead exemption law is
similar in policy to a California automobile exemption law, which had been applied
extraterritorially. Id. Lastly, the court said it found "nothing" in the state statutory
scheme, its legislative history, or its interpretation by California courts to limit
application of the exemption to homes within California. Id. at 937.
On similar reasoning, the court in Drenttel held that "the location of the home
is not relevant" under Minnesota's homestead exemption law, and the exemption is
therefore not limited to property located in Minnesota. 403 F.3d at 615. The court in
Drenttel relied on Arrol and a Minnesota statute to find that Minnesota's policy and
statutory construction permits extraterritorial application. Id.
Other courts allowing extraterritorial application of homestead exemption laws
look to whether similar exemption laws are limited to state residents. See In re
Stephens, 402 B.R. 1 (lOth Cir. B.A.P. 2009); In re Williams, 369 B.R. 470 (Bankr.
W.D. Ark. 2007). These courts reason that if similar exemption laws are restricted to
state residents, the absence of restrictive language in the homestead exemption law
should allow extraterritorial application. Stephens, 402 B.R. at 7-8; Williams, 369 B.R.
at 474-75. Iowa's homestead exemption law is silent as to extraterritorial application,
while its personal property exemption law expressly restricts the exemption to Iowa
residents. Through the logic of statutory construction, the court in Stephens therefore
reasoned that the legislature's choice to omit such language in the homestead
-5- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
exemption evidenced its intent for extraterritorial application. See also Williams, 369
B.R. at 476 (similarly holding that Iowa's homestead exemption applies
extraterritorially).
We recognize that these cases arise in a bankruptcy context and are thus of
limited value here. The bankruptcy courts did not consider the full scope of the state
homestead exemption laws or their application in other contexts. Nonetheless, these
cases highlight that the answer to whether a state's homestead exemption laws apply
extraterritorially turns largely on a statutory analysis. We therefore tum to an analysis
of Washington's homestead exemption statutes.
2. Analysis of Relevant Statutory Provisions
Washington's territorial legislature first recognized in statute the right to a
homestead exemption over 150 years ago. LAWS OF 1854, ch. 27, § 253, at 178. This
right was incorporated into article XIX, section 1 of the Washington Constitution,
providing that "[t]he legislature shall protect by law from forced sale a certain portion
of the homestead and other property of all heads of families." WASH. CONST. art. XIX,
§ 1. Pursuant to this constitutional power, the legislature enacted the homestead act in
1895.1 LAWS OF 1895, ch. 64, at 109-14.
A "homestead" is defined as "real or personal property that the owner uses as a
residence .... Property included in the homestead must be actually intended or used as
the principal home for the owner." RCW 6.13.010(1). A residence that meets this
definition is "exempt from attachment and from execution or forced sale for the debts
1 Currently codified under chapter 6.13 RCW. See LAWS OF 1987, ch. 442, § 1121.
-6- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
of the owner up to" a statutory maximum of $125,000 in value. RCW 6.13.070(1),
.030.
Determining whether the homestead exemption law applies extraterritorially is
a matter of statutory construction. When construing statutes, the court's goal is to
"'ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent."' Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners
Ass'n, 169 Wn.2d 516,526,243 P.3d 1283 (2010) (quotingArborwoodldaho, LLCv.
City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 367, 89 P.3d 217 (2004)). While engaging in
statutory construction, we first examine the plain meaning of the statute. State v. J.M,
144 Wn.2d 472, 480, 28 P.3d. 720 (2001). In so doing, the court may examine the
provision at issue, other provisions of the same act, and related statutes. Dep 't of
Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 10-12,43 P.3d 4 (2002).
We have repeatedly held that the homestead statutes are favored in the law and
should be liberally construed. Lien v. Ho.ffinan, 49 Wn.2d 642, 649, 306 P.2d 240
(1957); see also Macumber v. Shafer, 96 Wn.2d 568, 570, 637 P.2d 645 (1981)
("Homestead statutes are enacted as a matter of public policy in the interest ofhumanity
and thus are favored in the law and are accorded a liberal construction."); First Nat'l
Bank of Everett v. Tiffany, 40 Wn.2d 193, 202, 242 P.2d 169 (1952) ("[Homestead
exemption laws] do not protect the rights of creditors. In fact, they are in derogation of
such rights.").
This court's answer to the certified question is not limited to the analysis of a
single statutory provision defining "homestead"; instead, we must consider the entire
homestead exemption chapter-chapter 6.13 RCW-as contemplated by the
-7- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
bankruptcy court. The chapter contains no language expressly supporting or
prohibiting extraterritorial application of the exemption to property located outside of
Washington. The statutes defining "homestead" (RCW 6.13.010, .020), creating the
homestead exemption (RCW 6.13.030), and limiting its application (RCW 6.13.080)
do not expressly address this issue. It is clear the law does not directly speak to any
extraterritorial application.
Significantly, chapter 6.13 RCW includes statutes with specific procedures that
apply in nonbankruptcy contexts, many of which require actions by courts and
agencies. See RCW 6.13.040(2)-(4), .050 (describing procedures to file declarations
of homesteads, abandonments, and nonabandonments with "the recording officer of
the county in which the property is situated" and specifying that declarations "must
contain" certain statements), .090 (describing how a judgment creditor may file a lien
on a homestead property in excess of the homestead exemption and specifying timing
procedures for liens transferred from a "district court of this state"), .130, .150, .160,
.190, .240 (specifying court procedures on various issues and requiring courts to act,
stating the court "may," "shall," or "must" act in some manner). While these statutes
also do not expressly address the issue of extraterritoriality, they are informative of
legislative intent. "Statutes are to be read together, whenever possible, to achieve a
'harmonious total statutory scheme ... which maintains the integrity of the respective
statutes."' State ex rei. Peninsula Neigh. Ass 'n v. Dep 't ofTransp., 142 Wn.2d 328,
342, 12 P.3d 134 (2000) (alteration in original) (internal quotations marks omitted)
-8- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
(quoting Employco Pers. Servs., Inc. v. City ofSeattle, 117 Wn.2d 606, 614, 817 P.2d
1373 (1991)).
These procedures plainly apply only to courts and agencies in Washington. If
we were to interpret the homestead exemption to apply to real property located outside
of Washington, a consistent reading would also require the same actions to be taken
by out-of-state courts and agencies. It is unlikely the legislature intended such
extraterritorial application of these procedures, however, because the state lacks the
authority to direct actions and procedures of foreign courts or foreign agencies. Nor
can the procedural aspects of the law be jettisoned. The homestead exemption law
operates through its statutory procedures that direct courts and agencies. For this
reason, the homestead exemption law cannot apply to real property located outside of
Washington without necessarily triggering its procedural requirements. It would be
inconsistent with the comprehensive legislative scheme to apply some but not all
portions of the homestead law extraterritorially. "The court must . . . avoid
constructions that yield unlikely, absurd or strained consequences." Kilian v. Atkinson,
147 Wn.2d 16, 21, 50 P.3d 638 (2002).
Instead, a harmonious reading of the statutes under chapter 6.13 RCW supports
limiting the law's application to real property located in Washington. This
interpretation is supported by RCW 6.13.090, which states, in relevant part:
A judgment against the owner of a homestead shall become a lien on the value of the homestead property in excess of the homestead exemption from the time the judgment creditor records the judgment with the recording officer of the county where the property is located. However, if a judgment of a district court of this state has been transferred to a superior court, the judgment becomes a lien from the time of recording with such recording officer a duly certified
-9- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
abstract of the record of such judgment as it appears in the office of the clerk in which the transfer was originally filed.
(Emphasis added.) This statute sheds light on the question before us. The homestead
exemption law is designed to allow debtors to shield certain-not all-assets from
creditors, so this statute is a crucial component of the law. It describes how the excess
value of a homestead property, i.e., value exceeding $125,000, may be subject to a lien
by a creditor's judgment. In the context of recording a lien, the statute emphasizes that
it applies to district courts "of this state." Jd. Just as with the court procedures
described earlier, these types of liens are governed by state law and cannot be applied
in a foreign jurisdiction. See RCW 4.56.190.
Our interpretation is strongly supported by considering the context of Title 6
RCW in which Washington's homestead exemption law is found: that portion is
entitled "Enforcement of Judgments." (Emphasis omitted.) Title 6 RCW grants
Washington courts the power to enforce judgments, describes the procedures required
to enter judgments, and sets forth limitations on the enforcement of judgments. The
homestead exemption law, like the other exemptions in Title 6 RCW, places limitations
on a Washington court's power to enforce judgments. See ch. 6.15 RCW, entitled
"Personal Property Exemptions." (Emphasis omitted.)
General provisions of Title 6 RCW expressly limit the application of
exemptions, including chapter 6.13 RCW (the homestead exemption), to courts in
Washington. RCW 6.01.010 states, "[T]the provisions of this chapter and of chapter[
] 6.13 ... apply to both the superior courts and district courts ofthis state." (Emphasis added.) This provision should be understood to limit the homestead exemption law to
-10- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
its application in Washington courts. 2 This language is in contrast to California's
homestead exemption law, as interpreted inArrol, where the court found "nothing" in
the statutory scheme indicating a legislative intent to limit extraterritorial application
of the law. 170 F.3d at 937. When the legislature created our statute, it made
comprehensive amendments to the homestead exemption law in the same bill. LAWS
OF 1987, ch. 442, §§ 201-225. While those amendments are not directly relevant to
the question before us, they indicate that the legislature considered the entirety of
chapter 6.13 RCW when it provided for its application to "courts of this state." RCW
6.01.010.
While we have repeatedly held that the homestead exemption law is entitled to
a liberal construction, the structure of the homestead exemption law indicates a
legislative intent to limit application to homestead protection in Washington. A
comprehensive reading of the homestead exemption law, which includes consideration
of Title 6 RCW, shows that the exemption is intertwined with procedures and
requirements that can apply only to courts and agencies in Washington. Further, Title
6 RCW expressly states that the homestead exemption law applies to the courts of"this
state." RCW 6.01.010.
The Wiebers have not shown how the Washington-specific procedures under
chapter 6.13 RCW can be harmonized with an extraterritorial application of the
2 An alternative reading of the statute may suggest that it describes only Washington court procedures but does not limit a debtor's ability to exempt a homestead in another state. However, there is no language in this statute, chapter 6.13 RCW, or Title 6 RCW that supports such an interpretation. As noted, the statute provides a comprehensive scheme.
-11- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
homestead exemption law. We cannot ignore the procedural aspects of the law, as the certified question asked whether the homestead exemption law, in its entirety, applies to real property located in other states. That this question arises in the context of bankruptcy proceedings cannot change the answer; our interpretation of the statute must appreciate all of its applications. States have an interest in ensuring that their homestead exemption policies apply within their own jurisdiction because each state has unique laws that dictate the existence, scope, and nature of their homestead exemptions. Applying Washington's homestead exemption law to property located in another state may place competing policies at odds, as would application of another state's homestead exemption law to property located within Washington. The following homestead exemption policies of several states illustrate this principle. For example, some states do not afford debtors a homestead exemption at all. See N.J. STAT. ANN.§ 2A:17-17 (indicating that generally, all real estate shall be liable for judgments); 42 PA. CoNs. STAT. ANN. § 8124 (exempting particular property from execution but not including homesteads). In stark contrast, several states allow exemptions for the value of the entire homestead, with some acreage limitations, unlike Washington, which has a statutory maximum value of$125 ,000. See lowACoDE ANN. § 561.2; FLA. CONST. art. X,§ 4; TEX PROP. CODE ANN. § 41.002. Other states place varying exemption limits on homesteads located in urban or rural areas. See ARK. CODE ANN.§ 16-66-210 (limiting homesteads located inside cities, towns, or villages to 1 acre and those outside to 160 acres); LA. REv. STAT. ANN. § 20:1 (limiting
-12- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
homesteads located inside municipalities to 5 acres and those outside to 200 acres);
OR. REv. STAT. § 18.402 (limiting homesteads located inside towns or cities to one
block and those outside to 160 acres). Lastly, some states afford more protections to
debtors depending on their marital status, custody of minor children, age, or disability.
See ARK. CoDE ANN.§ 16-66-210 (allowing a homestead exemption only for debtors
who are married or the head of the family); CAL. CN. PROC. CoDE§ 704.730 (allowing
more protections for debtors or spouses who are 65 years of age or older or who are
physically or mentally disabled); TENN. CODE ANN. § 26-2-301 (allowing more
protections for debtors with minor children, married debtors, and debtors who are 62
years of age or older). Washington, too, affords debtors unique protections. Since the
homestead act was enacted in 1895, married debtors have been able to claim
homesteads from community property, a principle of family law that very few states
recognize. See LAWS OF 1895, ch. 64, § 2, at 109, codified at RCW 6.13.020.
In sum, the context of our homestead exemption law shows a legislative scheme
that limits its application to property located in Washington. Legislative intent to
provide only for an in-state homestead exemption is further evidenced by the express
limitation of related homestead procedures of courts in Washington under RCW
6.01.010. Further, states have an interest in limiting application of their homestead
exemption laws to property located within their jurisdiction because each sovereign has
unique homestead exemption policies.
-13- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
CONCLUSION We answer the certified question in the negative. While the homestead
exemption law does not expressly prohibit extraterritorial application, reading the
statutes in context shows a legislative intent to limit application to Washington. We
hold that Washington's homestead exemption law does not apply to property located in
other states.
-14- Wieber, et ux. v. Kiessling, No. 90331-0
WE CONCUR:
7?1-a~/ c.~
(~_,_
-15- In re the Bankruptcy Petition of Wieber et ux., Debtors (Wiggins, J., dissenting)
No. 90331-0
WIGGINS, J. (dissenting)-! would decline to answer the certified question
because I believe that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Washington has inadvertently presented us with a question whose answer actually
turns on federal law rather than Washington law. The relevant statute whose scope
determines the applicability of our homestead exemption in a federal bankruptcy case
is not Washington's homestead act in and of itself (ch. 6.13 RCW), but rather the
federal statute that permits a debtor to invoke our homestead act in a federal
bankruptcy court. Because construing the scope of a federal statute is not a question
of "the local law of this state," RCW 2.60.020 does not apply and we should decline
to answer the certified question.
The majority opinion examines our homestead act in isolation, ignoring the
possibility that, owing to the operation of federal law, our homestead exemption might
reach further in the federal bankruptcy context than in the context of cases filed in our
own district and superior courts. The majority correctly recognizes that a court's goal
when construing statutes is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent, but it
fails to recognize that in federal bankruptcy, the relevant legislature whose intent must
be ascertained is the one that created the federal bankruptcy system and its attendant
exemptions-the United States Congress. In re the Bankruptcy Petition of Wieber et ux., Debtors, No. 90331-0 (Wiggins, J., dissenting)
ANALYSIS
When the debtors in this case filed their bankruptcy petition, they invoked the
federal bankruptcy code's exemption statute, 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). That statute gives
debtors the ability to choose between two sets of exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1).
Specifically, a debtor may claim either an enumerated list of federal exemptions, see 11 U.S.C. § 522(d), or the exemptions available under the "State or local law" of the
debtor's domicile, 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A). Under§ 522's definition of "domicile," a
debtor who moves to a new state within two years of filing a federal bankruptcy petition
is deemed to be domiciled in his former state and thus may not claim the state law
exemptions of his new state. 1 The parties do not appear to dispute that Washington is
the debtors' domicile in this case under§ 522. 2
The determinative issue in this case is how to interpret the scope of § 522
because it is only through § 522 that our homestead act is relevant in a federal
1 Congress defined the debtor's "domicile" for the purposes of claiming exemptions as the place in which the debtor's domicile has been located for the 730 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition or if the debtor's domicile has not been located in a single State for such 730-day period, the place in which the debtor's domicile was located for 180 days immediately preceding the 730-day period or for a longer portion of such 180-day period than in any other place. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A). Section 522 appears to supersede state conflict-of-law rules with respect to exemptions in federal bankruptcy; if a state's rules would lead to the application of the law of a state other than that of the debtor's domicile, it would impermissibly undercut § 522(b)(3)(A)'s domicile-based exemption scheme and thus would be invalid under the supremacy clause. U.S. CoNST. art. VI, cl. 2; see, e.g., Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S. Ct. 399,85 L. Ed. 581 (1941) (a state law provision is invalid if it "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" as expressed in a federal statute).
2A state may partially opt out of this exemption scheme and bar its residents from using the enumerated list of federal exemptions, 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2), although federal exemptions
2 In re the Bankruptcy Petition of Wieber et ux., Debtors, No. 90331-0 (Wiggins, J., dissenting)
bankruptcy case. The majority seems to assume that when Congress chose to permit
debtors to claim state law exemptions under § 522(b)(3)(A), it intended for federal
courts to be subject to the same geographic and jurisdictional constraints that state
courts .face. But that is not necessarily true. Another possible construction is that
Congress intended through§ 522(b)(3)(A) to incorporate state law provisions covering
the categories and amounts of exempt property, but without restrictions, including
geographic limitations, that prejudice recently relocated debtors. See Laura B. Bartell,
The Peripatetic Debtor: Choice of Law and Choice of Exemptions, 22 EMORY BANKR.
DEV. J. 401, 418-20 (2006). This interpretation, which the debtors urge in their brief,
seems consistent with the liberal, prodebtor construction that federal courts apply to
exemptions under§ 522. See, e.g., In re Arrol, 170 F. 3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[W]e
are mindful of the strong policy underlying both California law and federal bankruptcy
law to interpret exemption statutes liberally in favor of the debtor."); In re Glass, 164
B.R. 759, 764 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994) (recognizing "that the availability of exemptions is
to be liberally construed in favor of the debtor").
Despite the fact that the bankruptcy court has sought our opinion on this matter,
I do not believe it is our place to tell a federal bankruptcy court which of these
interpretations of a federal statute is correct. The bankruptcy court, which handles
exemptions arising under§ 522 on a daily basis, is better positioned than this court to
specified in other subsections of§ 522 still apply, 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A). While a state may bar a resident from claiming the federal exemptions, § 522 does not contain a parallel provision giving states the authority to bar its residents from using the state's own exemptions. Washington has not opted out of the federal exemption scheme, thus leaving § 522 undisturbed with respect to Washington residents.
3 In re the Bankruptcy Petition of Wieber et ux., Debtors, No. 90331-0 (Wiggins, J., dissenting)
discern Congress's intent in § 522. Regardless, construing a federal statute is not a
matter of Washington state or local law, and RCW 2.60.020 therefore does not give
us the authority to answer this certified question.
To the extent our own legislature's intent is relevant here-and for the reasons
stated above, I do not believe it is-the legislative intent behind Washington's
homestead act supports permitting a federal bankruptcy court to apply our homestead
exemption to property owned by Washingtonians wherever that property is located.
As the majority correctly recognizes, the homestead act is a remedial statute that is
entitled to liberal construction. Majority at 7, 11. The majority further acknowledges
the homestead act "contains no language expressly supporting or prohibiting
extraterritorial application of the exemption to property located outside of
Washington." /d. at 8. The plain language of the homestead act thus does not preclude
a Washingtonian from exempting a homestead that is located in another state.
Nevertheless, the majority concludes that our legislature did not intend for our
homestead exemption to be applied to property physically located outside Washington
because chapter 6.13 RCW contains provisions specifying that Washington state
agencies and courts would be responsible for enforcement. /d. at 8-11 (citing RCW
6.13.040(2)-(4), .050, .090, .130, .150, .160, .190, .240).
This conclusion misses the point. At most, the statutes cited by the majority
merely recognize that our own courts and other state institutions lack the authority to apply Washington law extraterritorially. They say nothing about whether a federal
court-a court not subject to the same geographic and jurisdictional restrictions as our
4 In re the Bankruptcy Petition of Wieber et ux., Debtors, No. 90331-0 (Wiggins, J., dissenting)
own courts-has the power to do so. 3 Because we must construe the homestead act
liberally, I do not believe its references to local courts and agencies can be construed
as limiting the manner in which the exemption may be applied by a federal bankruptcy
court.
In any case, our own legislature's intent is not relevant to whether§ 522 grants
federal bankruptcy courts the authority to apply Washington's homestead exemption
to a Washingtonian's homestead in Alaska. If the bankruptcy court determines that
Congress did not intend to incorporate certain state law restrictions into the § 522
exemption scheme, then it may apply our homestead exemption to the disputed
property in this case. If it reaches the opposite concluston, it may reject the debtors'
attempt to claim an exemption on their Alaska property. Either way, the question
ultimately turns on an interpretation of a federal statute, not on an interpretation of
Washington law.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I would decline to answer the certified question.
3 It is worth noting that most of the references to local courts that the majority cites appeared in the version of the homestead act that our legislature enacted in 1895. See LAWS OF 1895, ch. 64, at 109; id. §§ 13 (corresponding to today's RCW 6.13.130), 17 (.150), 18 (.160), 22 (.190), 29 (.240); see also id. §§ 9, 11, 16, 26 (other provisions referring to actions by Washington courts). Given that Congress did not pass the first uniform federal bankruptcy law until1898 and did not create the current federal bankruptcy exemption scheme until1978, our legislature could not possibly have had modern federal bankruptcy law in mind when it created the homestead exemption. It would be anachronistic, then, to look to the legislative intent behind the statutes the majority cites when considering how our homestead exemption applies in federal bankruptcy.
5 In re the Bankruptcy Petition of Wieber et ux., Debtors, No. 90331-0
I dissent.