debtor has an exemption and we don't property that a debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence and the question here is what the whether the court order here and it provides that the dependents primary residence is with the mother the court order provides that the father has what's called an access schedule in the chapter two nights one week with the father and then one night and the next weekend with the father they spend weekends in the summertime is there and we we had he had to the majority view of them is not my my my were the course call it the majority view and fortunately the district court the bankruptcy court in this case didn't choose to be part of primary residence the but there is a minority view called the plain meaning view i guess what i've learned over the years as a son is people start talking about a plain meaning the one thing this claim is that the meaning really going to do is to take a look at the purpose of the statute and look at the purpose of the statute in particularly in the context of this case i mean the purpose of the statute is to help debtor is not get thrown out of their houses when they go  the with the expos and the purpose of the bankruptcy code is to is to prevent that that debtor i'm sorry that that defendant from getting thrown out of his house but that's not the situation here situation this this kid is has a primary residence with his mother emily's me as the primary residence is because terry donovan was so good at getting up a lot of money was a mother during the course of the divorce proceedings and from time to time he spends the night at his father's on a regular basis but but he's not going to get parole out into the streets if the court if the court says that we're not going to allow a bankrupt to about uninterrupted judge bianco will begin the questioning thanks to its catchment mr domination will go back to the issue of the plain meaning you know we have terms that are well understood to make these distinctions that we're talking about here primary residence principal residence or well established terms and yet neither of those things were used and when they're not used we also understand what it means it means that if you live somewhere even if it's not you know your primary principle has been instead it counts so i guess i don't understand why we would read in terms that congress did not put and that are sort of that are well understood and the one thing i also wanted to address in conjunction with that is in that i think this particular provision and another provision enacted at the same time one thousand three hundred and twenty two b to actually use the term principal residence so we have no doubt that congress understood these distinctions because they do not fit another provision at the same time that had that term in it so why would we read that in here well i'm not exactly sure if you look at the united states court as a whole if someone has multiple residences and a principal residence one would assume that when they used that term in another provision the same statute if you take a look at it but if you take a look at the same statute when they use when they use the word principal residence so what part of the principal residence shall be the place where he reside most of the time and receives mail and registers to vote ok so it's not really it i don't see that the fact that they define principal residence to include outbuildings and things like  as you noted we're talking about dependence too so the whole idea of the connecticut well for example homestead refers to on occupied real property and here when you start the bankruptcy provision here is trying to get a different thing which is dependent so it's clearly trying to say something more than we just want to examine the property that the debtor lives in so if the purpose of the bank is going to give someone a clean slate i don't know that i necessarily agree with you that if there's a dependent who lives somewhere else or that the dead are always the property that the bankruptcy court wouldn't want to protect those residences well it's doesn't spot then you come to your reading of the statute he would be the because she owns that residence where the father is staying he would be gone wouldn't be able to stay with his father at that residence even though it's not the primary residence of the dependen point right now but i think that that's that's that's a much less important factor than then than the actual place where the child is living and i think that's what  about is that the is that the child will be thrown out of this house i mean if this kid owns it if if if if the mother owns a timesharing can cool according to mariska well and the kid goes down the up and vacations according to murmur after congress intended that that t very rich family that has bought houses for the for the grandparents they can just pick and choose among even though even though the kid may spend ninety five percent of his time with his mother if he spends a uses as a residence that map you know i don't i don't i don't give much much significance to to that i don't think i think that what that what i get significance to is the court order says the primary so that there's no court order that says the primary residence is the mother the court order says that the residence would be shared if that was the case he if the factual facts of where the child actually sleeps you say does doesn't matter all that matters is is the word primary in your view which isn't in there but the actual days of the week or days of the month or days of the year doesn't seem to affect them in your views are a no no no not at all not at all i mean if we had a situation here where it's said that the primary residence should be with the with the with the mother and that there's a certain visitation schedule but it turned out that the mother was a drug addict that this is not the situation the rescue don't want to just have to settle for the mole was a drug addict who never took care of the child much else always with the father i would think that that we could pursue there just present evidence concerning that and we would see that the person's primary residence actually was with the father despite what the court order said here it's a lot easier because there's a court order and follow the court orders so we don't have to have evidence concerning you know with how much time the kid spends spends so yeah no i think i think that there may be situations judge in which he would have to have a hearing in order to determine would have to look at a whole bunch of other of the facts i mean this is not this is not a what else what else would you look at once you knew that the child was going to be with each parent after the year does the  you mean sure the court would rule but if if you're insisting that we should read the word primary in there and we get a case where neither residence is primary it seems to me you're reading creates a  primary residence it's not it's not a terribly difficult thing for the court to decide with adults you take a look at you know where they were because rose that you know it's typically don't use the word uses as do they they say the residents and we don't have multiple whether this is that you can choose among we have a maybe we'll do that it doesn't seem to me at all surprising that a state would say we're going to we're going to tax you on the property in our state that you use as a residence we don't care where your primary one is we're going to tax you if you use it as a resident thing the state would do that no i think i think if you use our state as a residence and might even pay to use our state as a residence during any part of the year so that was i guess if i go to spend the night it's way your primary residence is so the problem is that your owners are raising me that there could be all these different residences would have to determine this well i mean that's that that's true but that's true and it's made much more simple by the  if the state law defines that to include the primary on primary residences residence in five hundred and twenty two the one include primary and nine private primary residences as defines homestead as owner occupied a real property used as a primary residence and so does that mean under the state law for which the debtor cannot claim an exemption in property that the  debtor does not occupy even if the debtor is dependent uses the property as a primary residence in other words and if so doesn't that for a dependent of that that debtor out of  connecticut law defines homestead as owner occupied real property and so my question to you is in following up on some of the previous questions under residence the the piece of real property that we're discussing the father's residence was not the child's residence but there's actually an order of the bankruptcy court that finds that this is a residence of the child so the court the not engage in any speculation about whether or not this property is the child's residence the bankruptcy court made such a finding and i i think it  in support of that this is actually where the church the town where the child goes to school and i think that's a significant fact and also i think brother council makes a little light of the fact that this is a child of a divorced home where yes there may be unequal visitation schedules  t it's probably the case that both parents want the child to feel that their respective homes is a resident i doubt very much donovan said that you're not going to be thrown out well the breach didn't address any remedial action but this is since it was brought up i'd like to address it this arises in the context appellant can foreclose on that lead and in there and that sense the father and the child would also be would be thrown out  s and it's the majority approach doesn't that suggest that we should we should tread carefully if a majority of bankruptcy approach of a different set of facts and inexplicable to this case the majority approach is analyzing a situation where a debtor residence the majority opinion says well if we want to decide which which piece of property the debtor could invoke his or her homestead we look to the law of the state to say tell us which property the debtor is going to be able to apply his or her exemption  as opposed to the minority view which is the debtor gets to choose it doesn't matter where the debt it whether the debtor spends four nights a year at the vacation home in va l if they use it as a residence at anytime the minority view is they get to use their homestead exemption for that piece of property  is the man majority view says no your your primary residence is your homestead the place where under state law which defines your homestead that's the one we're going to limits well i think you know i think your honor is touched on the fact that the reason why it's a minority approach the minority approach  strict talking about policy is probably not the best we're talking about a debtor his or herself being able to utilize say to define the word residence residence is not a defined term under the bankruptcy code in this case the court engaged in a hearing to determine whether or not something is whether whether or not the property at issue is a residence and i believe that the court never heard evidence on that fact because it was agreed that was a stipulated a stipulation where the parties agreed that this was a residence of the child and that the where the parties diverged was whether it was the primary residence  is it is it or is it a residence of a child within the meaning of the exemption nd point is the fact the kid goes to school in the same time with the father is not the time with the mother is we don't think that significant that was the school he was going to before the divorce they kept him there i think i think the parents houses are pretty much equally distant from the school i mean if they're not equal distances just questionable mile or so i mean the debtor lives in the next town over and the school doesn't make any any sacrifice any concern with the primary residence of the child this is a fact if a parent was in the town the kid going to that school and then finally i mean it's not really a situation where there's an equal visitation schedules the primary residence is with the mother and there are certain consequences of that it's not as if the court said we're going to spend spend thirty hours a week with the mother and it's an eighty hours with that with father this is the primary residence is with the mother and the father has access and i think and i think the good question is what's the limitation on it and if you don't accept my view there is no limitation on this plane meaning view of the exemption so i think you want to get this case pretty much in hand and i've got versus bar and gives versus grounds and with that