In Re Latham

182 B.R. 479, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 705, 1995 WL 316879
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia
DecidedMay 23, 1995
Docket14-50951
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 B.R. 479 (In Re Latham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Latham, 182 B.R. 479, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 705, 1995 WL 316879 (Va. 1995).

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

ROSS W. KRUMM, Chief Judge.

The matter for decision by the court arises as a result of the objection by the Chapter 7 trustee to the debtors’ claim of homestead exemptions and poor debtor exemptions under Code of Virginia § 34-4 and § 34 — 26. The parties have submitted the case to the court for decision on stipulated facts.

Facts

The stipulation of facts shows that on the date the debtors filed their Chapter 7 proceeding they were residents of Washington County, Virginia. However, they owned a vacation beach house in Corolla, North Carolina, which contained a quantity of personal property furnishing the beach house. The vacation beach house was used by the debtors for vacations and as a rental property. The debtors have claimed as exempt under Code of Virginia § 34-26 the following:

Miscellaneous household goods, miscellaneous beach furniture, miscellaneous clothing, engagement and wedding rings and a 1989 Dodge Caravan

The debtors claim the miscellaneous beach furniture as household furniture under Code of Virginia § 34-26. See Va.Code Ann. § 34-26 (Michie 1950).

In addition to the miscellaneous beach furniture, the debtors have claimed income from the beach property in the amount of $3,000.00 on the homestead deed which they *481 filed in Washington County on October 24, 1994. The stipulation of the parties reveals that at the date of the filing of the petition for relief a real estate company in North Carolina was holding $2,700.00 of rent revenue due to the debtors. This income represented rent which was paid for rental of the beach house in periods prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Positions of the Parties

The debtors take the position that the miscellaneous beach furniture, which the trustee claims has a value of $9,200.00, constitutes household furnishings under Code of Virginia § 34-26(4a). With respect to the rental income, the debtors take the position that their homestead deed filed in Washington County, Virginia, on October 24, 1994, claiming income from the beach property as exempt under Code of Virginia § 34-4 is sufficient to perfect their exemption in the rental income.

The trustee takes the position that the miscellaneous beach furniture is not household furniture because it is not located in the debtors’ household and constitutes personal property located on a property used by the debtors to generate rental income. As to the rental income, the trustee takes the position that the debtors were required to file their homestead deed in North Carolina at the situs of the real property in order to perfect their claimed exemption in the rental income.

Law and Discussion

A. The Miscellaneous Beach Furniture.

In relevant part, Code of Virginia § 34-26 states:

Section 34-26, Poor Debtor’s Exemption; Exempt Articles Enumerated — In addition to the exemptions provided in chapter 2 (section 34-4 et seq.) of this title, every householder shall be entitled to hold exempt from creditor process the following enumerated items:
(4a) All household furnishings including, but not limited to, beds, dressers, floor coverings, stoves, refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, sewing machines, pots and pans for cooking, plates and eating utensils, not to exceed $6,000.00 in value.

Va.Code Ann. § 34-26 (Michie 1950). For the reasons stated in this Decision and Order, the court finds that the miscellaneous beach furniture does not fall within the statutory phrase “household furnishings” found in section 34-26(4a).

There is no published decision which defines the term “household furnishings” found in Code of Virginia § 34-26(4a). However, the meaning can be determined by an examination both of the statute itself and the definition of household furnishings in Black’s Law Dictionary. In addition, reference to McGreevy v. ITT Financial Servs. (In re McGreevy), 955 F.2d 957 (4th Cir.1992) provides a definition of “household goods” of which household furniture is a subset.

The long-standing rule in Virginia is to construe exemption statutes liberally. See In re Hanes, 162 B.R. 733, 737-738 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1994). However,

[t]he liberal construction required to be given our constitutional and statutory provisions does not authorize the courts to reduce or enlarge the exemption, or to read into the exemption laws an exception not found there.

Id. at 738 (quoting Goldburg Co. v. Salyer, 188 Va. 573, 582, 50 S.E.2d 272, 277 (1948)). The purpose of the homestead exemptions is to protect the debtor from being left destitute from creditor process. In re Smith, 22 B.R. 866, 867 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1982). It is within this framework that the court must define “household furnishings.”

The statute itself gives examples of household furnishings which the legislature intended to set aside for the benefit of the debtor and family. These examples, which are not all inclusive, are beds, dressers, floor coverings, stoves, refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, sewing machines, pots and pans for cooking, plates, and eating utensils. The examples cited by the legislature in the statute point toward items that debtors can retain and use in order to facilitate their fresh start.

The word “household” in the statute is an adjective modifying the word “furnishings.” In that context, Black’s Law Dictionary de *482 fines “household”' as “[b]elonging to the house and family; domestic.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 873 (4th ed. 1968). This definition, when applied to this ease, indicates that furnishings must be owned and used by the family in its house. Black’s Law Dictionary also defines household furniture:

Household furniture includes all personal chattels that may contribute to the use or convenience of the householder, or the ornament of the house; as plate, linen, china, both useful and ornamental, and pictures. But goods in trade, books and wines will not pass by a bequest of household furniture. 1 Rop.Leg. 203.

Id. at 804. Again, the common definitions indicate a necessity that the furnishings be in the household and used by the householder or family.

The definition of “household goods” has been litigated in connection with efforts by debtors to utilize 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A) to avoid liens. Section 522(f) allows debtors to avoid liens on “household goods” that are “held primarily for the personal, family, or household use of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.” In examining the meaning of household goods in the section 522(f) context, the Fourth Circuit defined household goods to “incorporate a requirement of a functional nexus between the good and the household.”

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

Related

Hicks v. Washington Mutual Finance (In re Hicks)
276 B.R. 84 (W.D. Virginia, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 B.R. 479, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 705, 1995 WL 316879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-latham-vawb-1995.