Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-06027/USCOURTS-ca8-04-06027-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

1

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 04-6027EM

________________

In re: *

*

Melissa Lynn Ardrey *

*

Debtor. *

*

*

Melissa Lynn Ardrey *

* Appeal from the United States

Debtor - Appellant, * Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri

v. *

*

Robert J. Blackwell *

*

Trustee - Appellee. *

_____

Submitted: September 29, 2004

Filed: November 1, 2004

_____

Before KRESSEL, Chief Judge, MAHONEY, and VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judges.

_____

VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judge.

Appellate Case: 04-6027 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2004 Entry ID: 1829076 
1

 The Debtor’s notice of appeal stated that she was appealing the bankruptcy

court’s order denying her leave to amend her claims of exemption, but a review of

the record shows that no such order exists. The substance of both parties’

pleadings addresses the bankruptcy court’s May 25, 2004 order sustaining the

Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s amended claim. In the interests of justice and

judicial efficiency, we will address the substance of the appeal as presented in the

briefs. 

2

This is an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court entered on May 25,

2004, sustaining the objection of Robert J. Blackwell, chapter 7 trustee (“Trustee”),

to Debtor Melissa Lynn Ardrey’s amended claim of exemption in a tax refund.1

 For

the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be

set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity

of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8013. Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and legal conclusions are

reviewed de novo. Waterman v. Ditto (In re Waterman), 248 B.R. 567, 570 (B.A.P.

8th Cir. 2000). A bankruptcy court’s denial of a claim of exemption is a final,

appealable order. In re McGowan, 226 B.R. 13, 16 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1998).

II. BACKGROUND

Melissa Lynn Ardrey (“Debtor”) filed for protection under chapter 7 of the

bankruptcy code on December 31, 2002. On her original bankruptcy “Schedule C”

under the column labeled, “Value of Claimed Exemption,” for the property described

as “Clothing, personal effects, household furnishings, cash and all salary due as of

filing, tax refunds,” the Debtor listed $1,000.00 as exempt under Mo. Rev. Stat. 

Appellate Case: 04-6027 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2004 Entry ID: 1829076 
2

 According to the briefs and statements of counsel at oral argument, the

actual amount at issue is $3,031.00.

3

§ 413.430(1); $400.00 as exempt under § 513.430(3); and $1,100.00 as exempt under

§513.440. Handwritten notes in the “Description of Property” column appear to

allocate $500.00 of the exemption for “cash and salary due as of filing” and $1,000.00

for “tax refunds.” 

At some time after the petition date, the Debtor received tax refunds in excess

of her scheduled exemptions, and on May 14, 2003, the Trustee filed an adversary

proceeding against the Debtor seeking turnover of $3,042.00,2

 representing the

balance in the Debtor’s checking account (in which the tax refunds had been

deposited) after allowance for the scheduled exemptions. The Debtor argued that

those funds were exempt under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.427, but on March 10, 2004, the

bankruptcy court entered summary judgment in the adversary proceeding in favor of

the Trustee on the grounds that the Debtor’s Schedule C did not contain a claim of

exemption based on that provision. The Debtor then amended her schedules three

days later, on March 13, 2004, to claim an exemption in the tax refunds under §

513.427. The Trustee filed an objection to the Debtor’s amended claim of exemption

on March 18, 2004. 

On April 21, 2004, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the Trustee’s

objection and, in an oral ruling from the bench, sustained the Trustee’s objection on

the grounds that the Trustee’s earlier procurement of an order for turnover constituted

“substantial administration” of the tax refunds and that allowing the amended claim

at that juncture would be “unduly prejudicial to the creditors.” (Transcript of April

21, 2004 Hearing at 8). The bankruptcy court entered a written order on May 24,

2004, memorializing its findings. Both the bankruptcy court’s oral and written

rulings included a specific holding that the Debtor was being allowed to amend her

Appellate Case: 04-6027 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/01/2004 Entry ID: 1829076 
3

 Some courts draw a distinction between denying a debtor leave to amend

on the basis of bad faith or prejudice to creditors and denying an amended claim

on the merits. See, e.g., In re Arnold, 252 B.R. 778, 783 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000)

(distinguishing between an objection to the allowance of an amended exemption

and the merits of the amended exemption). And there may be some merit to this

distinction because granting a debtor leave to amend may actually preclude a

finding that the amended exemption is prejudicial to the estate inasmuch as the

granting of leave to amend a claim of exemption implies that the amendment is not

prejudicial to creditors. 

4

exemptions and that it was only the amended exemption which was being denied. (Id.

at 7; May 25, 2004 Order at 3). 

Between the time the bankruptcy court made its oral ruling and entered the

written order, the Debtor filed a notice of appeal in the adversary proceeding. The

substance of the appeal, however, addressed the bankruptcy court’s oral ruling in the

main case sustaining the Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s amended claim of

exemption in the tax refunds. That is the issue we rule upon here.

III. DISCUSSION

After allowing the Debtor to amend her claim of exemption pursuant to Federal

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1009, the bankruptcy court sustained the Trustee’s

objection to the Debtor’s amended claim of exemption in tax refunds on the grounds

that the Trustee had “substantially administered” them by obtaining an order of

turnover and that allowing the amended claim at that juncture would unduly prejudice

creditors. 

Although we have some concern whether “substantial administration” is a valid

basis to deny an amended claim,3

 we do not need to reach that issue because we hold

that the bankruptcy court committed clear factual error when it found that the tax

refunds were substantially administered. The only fact the bankruptcy court cited in

Appellate Case: 04-6027 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/01/2004 Entry ID: 1829076 
4

 Counsel for both parties acknowledged in oral argument that the funds

were turned over to the Trustee after the briefs were filed in this appeal.

5

support of its finding that the Trustee had substantially administered the tax refunds

was the Trustee’s procurement of the turnover order. That fact alone is not enough

to support a finding that the asset had been substantially administered, especially

since the Trustee, by his own admission, did not have possession of the tax refunds

on the date of the hearing before the bankruptcy court.4

 (Appellant’s Opening Brief

at 4)

The bankruptcy court also opined that, if allowed, the amended exemption

would be prejudicial to creditors because it would deprive creditors of “assets that

would otherwise be available for distribution on allowed claims.” That is always true

of exemptions, original or amended. There is nothing in the record showing that the

amendment would cause any greater prejudice to third parties than that normally

associated with a claim of exemption. See In re Arnold, 252 B.R. at 785 (“Merely

showing prejudice is not enough: the court must balance the prejudice to the debtor

of disallowing the exemption against the prejudice to third parties in allowing the

exemption.”) (quoting In re Brown, 56 B.R. 954, 958 n. 11 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.

1986)). 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the order of the

bankruptcy court sustaining the Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s amended

objection and remand for a ruling on the merits of the Debtor’s amended objection.

 

Appellate Case: 04-6027 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/01/2004 Entry ID: 1829076