Exemptions in Bankruptcy

When you file bankruptcy, almost everything you own becomes part of your bankruptcy estate. The estate is the pile of stuff from which the trustee can sell or liquidate to raise money. With that money, he pays creditors on a pro-rata basis. Some of the property in the estate is exempt, meaning the trustee can't touch it.

Exemptions can be full or partial. Full exemptions are things like household furnishings (subject to their being included in the list of exemptions). These include things like washers, dryers, refrigerators, beds, personal clothing, most furniture and the like. Also included in a full exemption are IRAs and 401Ks and other qualified retirement accounts. In Utah contributions made to such accounts in the past year are not exempt, but under federal law, all contributions are exempt. Make sure your attorney claims the federal exemption as well as the state exemption or you could lose contributions made in the last 12 months.

Partial exemptions are exemptions based on dollar values. For example, Utah law exempts $2,500 for a vehicle, per person. It also exempts $20,000 for a homestead exemption. Both of these dollar amounts have been on the books for over 20 years and are woefully outdated. Who can get a reliable car for $2,500? Yet that's all Utah law allows a debtor to acquire a vehicle to get to and from work. And $20,000 ($40,000 if married and filing jointly) for a house? While that's a more generous amount due to the recent downturn in the housing market, truly what does $20,000 do to protect your home, which is the purpose of a homestead exemption.

Don't count on the Utah legislature to update exemptions any time soon, though. Utah is one of the most creditor-friendly states in the nation, which is one reason it has one of the highest percentages of bankruptcy filings.

Creditors Should Read Their Mail

On March 23 the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in a bankruptcy case that, in essence, says creditors need to read their mail. The case is United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa. Justice Thomas delivered a unanimous opinion.

The facts are fairly simple. Espinosa had several student loans that totalled $13,000. In his Chapter 13 plan he proposed to pay principal only, no interest, which resulted in a discharge of the interest. Normally, any discharge of any part of a student loan requires an adversary proceeding and a finding of a "hardship discharge." In this case, neither the creditor nor the trustee objected to Espinosa's plan. Espinosa completed his plan and received a discharge.

Several years later, United Student Aid Funds attempted to collect by garnishing Espinosa's tax refund. Espinosa responded by reopening his bankruptcy case to obtain an order prohibiting United Student Aid Funds from trying to collect. The case eventually worked its way to the Supreme Court. There were several complicated legal issues involved in the case, but the bottom line is, where a creditor admittedly received a copy of the plan and failed to object, it can't come back years later and ask the court to fix its mistake.