In Re Laube

152 B.R. 260, 1993 Bankr. LEXIS 552, 1993 WL 93536
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin
DecidedMarch 16, 1993
Docket3-17-11510
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 152 B.R. 260 (In Re Laube) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Laube, 152 B.R. 260, 1993 Bankr. LEXIS 552, 1993 WL 93536 (Wis. 1993).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ROBERT D. MARTIN, Chief Judge.

This case presents an issue of first impression: whether a semi truck cab qualifies as an exempt homestead under Wis. Stat. § 815.20(1). The debtor, Shirl John Laube, Jr. (“Laube”) has been an over-the-road truck driver employed by A & H Inc. in Footville, Wisconsin for 26 years. Laube owns a 1988 Kenworth Aerodyne Tractor. It is 250 inches long and is equipped with a sleeper berth which contains a bunk bed, refrigerator, television, radio, heater and air conditioning. It does not have a bathroom or cooking facilities.

Each Monday, Laube sets out in the tractor to pull a refrigerated trailer filled with cheese to New York. He makes a delivery on Wednesday and returns to Wisconsin on Friday. On weekends, Laube uses the tractor for hauling milk in Wisconsin. He has no income except that produced with his tractor.

The extensive trucking logs kept by Laube show that since March 1, 1992, Laube has used the cab-tractor as his primary shelter. Laube sometimes eats in the cab. He visits with people and completes his trucking forms in the cab. He sleeps in the sleeper berth of the tractor most of the time. A few days of each month, when Laube is off-duty, he sleeps at his sister’s house in Footville. At his sister’s house, Laube visits with his children under visitation rights granted pending his divorce. Laube also uses his sister’s address as his primary mailing address. While out East, Laube occasionally (approximately once each month) stays at a hotel when alternative means of bathing are not readily available.

Laube owns a house in Evansville, Wisconsin, with a wife from whom he is separated and in the process of obtaining a divorce. Mrs. Laube has had exclusive use of the Evansville house and real estate since March 1, 1992 when Laube took up residence in his truck cab. A judgment of foreclosure was entered against the Evansville real estate on September 21, 1992.

Laube filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on November 25, 1992. At the time of filing, the tractor was valued at $30,000, subject to a $12,876.80 security interest in favor of his employer, A & H Inc. Laube claimed the $17,123.20 equity as an exempt homestead pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 815.-20(1). A hearing on the trustee’s objection to the characterization of the tractor as a homestead was completed January 19, 1993.

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), an individual debtor may exempt from the bankruptcy estate property classified as exempt under either federal or state law. Laube chose the Wisconsin scheme of exemptions. Section 815.20 provides in relevant part that:

(1) An exempt homestead as defined in s. 990.01(14) selected by a resident owner and occupied by him or her shall be exempt from execution, from the lien of every judgment and from liability for the debts of the owner to the amount of $40,000....

Wis.Stat. § 815.20(1).

Wisconsin has a public policy of protecting the homestead exemption and homestead statutes have enjoyed particularly liberal construction. Matter of Neis, 723 F.2d 584, 587 (7th Cir.1983) (citing Schwanz v. Teper, 66 Wis.2d 157, 223 N.W.2d 896 (1974)). As stated by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, “homestead statutes are remedial legislation and, as such, *262 are to be liberally construed in favor of the debtor.” State Central Credit Union v. Bigus, 101 Wis.2d 237, 241, 304 N.W.2d 148 (Ct.App.1981).

According to Wisconsin’s rules of construction, “technical words and phrases and others that have a peculiar meaning in the law shall be construed according to such meaning.” Wis.Stat. § 990.01(1). Under Wisconsin law, “exempt homestead” is a “dwelling, including a building, condominium, mobile home, house trailer or coop-erative_” Wis.Stat. § 990.01(14).

Clearly, a truck cab is not a building, condominium, house trailer or cooperative. Furthermore, it is not a mobile home. 1 Although unquestionably mobile and arguably a home, Laube’s truck cab is not a vehicle designed to be towed as a single unit or in sections upon a highway by a motor vehicle.

Is it a “dwelling” under § 990.01(14)? The word “dwelling” is not defined in the Wisconsin statutes pertaining to the homestead exemption. 2 In construing words which do not have a peculiar meaning in the law, the court is directed to use “common and approved usage.” Wis.Stat. § 990.01(1). “What is common and approved can be established by the definition from a recognized dictionary.” Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Gibson, 155 Wis.2d 325, 329, 455 N.W.2d 674 (Ct.App. 1990), review denied 457 N.W.2d 324 (1990), (citing Milwaukee County v. DILHR, 80 Wis.2d 445, 450, 259 N.W.2d 118, 121 (1977)).

In the 1986 unabridged version of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, a “dwelling” is “a building or construction used for residence.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 706 (1986). A “construction” is “something built or erected.” Id. at 489. A 1972 version of Webster's, which Laube relied on at the hearing, defines a “dwelling” as “a building or other shelter in which people live.” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 259 (1972). A “shelter” is “something that covers or affords protection especially from the elements.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 2093 (1986). The American Heritage Dictionary is even more generous in its definition: a “dwelling” is “[a] place to live in; abode.” American Heritage Dictionary 431 (2d College ed 1982). Rather circularly, an “abode” is defined as “[a] dwelling place or home.” Id. at 67.

Regardless of the dictionary used, the term “dwelling” appears to be broad enough to include a cab-tractor which is used as a primary residence. It is a “construction” which provides protection from the elements, and is a “shelter.” As contemplated by the definitions of “dwelling,” Laube currently resides in his cab-tractor and has resided there since March 1, 1992.

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

Related

In re Carter
550 B.R. 433 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2016)
Hoffman v. Hartley (In re Hartley)
483 B.R. 700 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2012)
In re Woller
483 B.R. 886 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2012)
Norris v. Thomas
413 F.3d 526 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
Norris v. Thomas (In Re Norris)
316 B.R. 246 (W.D. Texas, 2004)
In Re Irwin
293 B.R. 28 (D. Arizona, 2003)
In Re Mead
255 B.R. 80 (S.D. Florida, 2000)
Cobbins v. Henderson
227 F.3d 302 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
In Re Cobbins
234 B.R. 882 (S.D. Mississippi, 1999)
In Re Ross
210 B.R. 320 (N.D. Illinois, 1997)
In Re Herd
176 B.R. 312 (D. Connecticut, 1994)
In Re Meola
158 B.R. 881 (S.D. Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 B.R. 260, 1993 Bankr. LEXIS 552, 1993 WL 93536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-laube-wiwb-1993.