Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Fact No. 16]. Because Swayne held that the proceeds of an insurance policy take the place of the property loss, the settlement proceeds paid by TWIA therefore take the place of the property loss associated with the Debtor’s homestead. Moreover, because a court may not limit the value of such proceeds under the homestead exemption, the Debt- or may exempt the entire settlement amount of $73,000.00. Nor does the fact that the State Court Lawsuit pleaded several causes of action change this conclusion. Texas case law discusses apportionment of settlement proceeds, holding that debtors do not have the initial burden of breaking down these awards into exempt proceeds and nonexempt proceeds for other state law claims. See, e.g., In re Harrington, 306 B.R. 172, 183 (Bankr.E.D.Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>)- In In re Harrington, the Chapter 7 trustee 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the objector must not only show that the facts do not support the exemption but must also prove that the debtor knowingly deceived the trustee and the creditors at the time the exemption was made (B) holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party (C) holding that the trustee objector cannot escape the burden of proof assigned to an objecting party under rule 4003c because the exemption claim relates to a settlement agreement which fails to allocate damages into specif ic categories of recovery (D) holding that the burden of proof is initially placed upon the objector with respect to any objections he files and  this burden does not shift to the debtor merely upon a showing that the debtor has failed to allocate the personal injury settlement into its various component parts (E) holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt
Output (English): holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt