Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20034/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rachel Brown
Appellant
Ronald J. Sommers
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20034

In the matter of: MICHAEL GLYN BROWN,

 Deceased Debtor

------------------------------

RACHEL BROWN, 

 Appellant

v.

RONALD J. SOMMERS, Trustee, 

 Appellee

CONSOLIDATED WITH 15-20148

MICHAEL GLYN BROWN; LIONHEART COMPANY, INCORPORATED; 

CASTLEMANE, INCORPORATED; PRORENTALS, INCORPORATED; 

SUPERIOR VEHICLE LEASING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; MG 

BROWN COMPANY, L.L.C.

 Debtors

----------------------------------------------

JUDY LENOX, Representative of Michael Glyn Brown; RACHEL BROWN,

 Appellants

v.

RONALD J. SOMMERS, Trustee,

 Appellee

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before DAVIS, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

Michael Glyn Brown (“Debtor”) died during the pendency of his 

bankruptcy case. Debtor’s estranged spouse, Rachel Brown (“Rachel”), and 

Debtor’s personal representative, Judy Lenox (“Lenox”), claimed various 

allowances and exemptions under the Texas Estates Code in Debtor’s 

bankruptcy case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §§ 501, 502, and 522. The 

bankruptcy court ruled that neither Lenox nor Rachel was entitled to relief 

under the Texas Estates Code. 

We dismiss the appeal to the extent Rachel seeks a probate allowance to 

be paid out of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. In all other respects, we affirm.

I.

The parties do not dispute the essential facts of these consolidated 

appeals; they dispute only the legal significance of those facts.

A.

Debtor was a successful surgeon who accumulated a great deal of wealth 

and property during his lifetime. For many years, Debtor resided with Rachel 

and their children at 9110 Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas (the “Memorial 

Property”). 

Debtor and Rachel separated in August 2010. Rachel initiated divorce 

proceedings in a Texas court in 2011. The divorce proceedings were 

acrimonious and protracted. As explained in greater detail below, Debtor and 

Rachel never obtained a final divorce.

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

3

Debtor moved to Miami, Florida in late 2011. Rachel and her minor 

children continued to reside in Texas at the Memorial Property.

B.

Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the Southern 

District of Florida (the “Florida Bankruptcy Court”) on January 23, 2013.1

Rachel did not join Debtor’s bankruptcy petition as a joint debtor.

Debtor engaged in significant misconduct during his bankruptcy case. 

As a result, the Florida Bankruptcy Court conditionally dismissed Debtor’s 

bankruptcy case and appointed a chief restructuring officer to reorganize and 

operate Debtor’s business and personal financial affairs.

After Debtor substantially interfered with the chief restructuring 

officer’s efforts, the Florida Bankruptcy Court reinstated Debtor’s bankruptcy 

case, transferred the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of Texas (the “Texas Bankruptcy Court”), and directed the 

appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, Ronald J. Sommers (the “Trustee”).

C.

Debtor died in Florida shortly thereafter. Although Debtor left numerous 

wills, none of the wills appear to be valid. As a result, no probate court has yet 

assumed jurisdiction over Debtor’s probate estate, and it is unlikely that any 

probate proceedings will be instituted in the near future. The parties therefore 

agree that, for all practical purposes, Debtor “effectively . . . died intestate.”

In response to Debtor’s death, the Texas Bankruptcy Court converted 

Debtor’s bankruptcy case to a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy 

 

1 Chapter 11 is the chapter of the bankruptcy code that governs the reorganization of 

debtors. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101-74.

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

4

Code.2 The Trustee remained assigned to the case as the chapter 7 trustee. The 

Texas Bankruptcy Court appointed Lenox to act as Debtor’s personal 

representative in the bankruptcy case.

Because Debtor and Rachel never obtained a final divorce, Debtor and 

Rachel remained legally married at the time of Debtor’s death.

D.

Lenox attempted to claim the Memorial Property as Debtor’s exempt 

homestead under Texas Property Code § 41.001 and Texas Constitution art. 16 

§ 50. Soon after Lenox claimed that exemption, however, she learned that the 

Memorial Property was deeply encumbered by debt. Although the 

commencement of a bankruptcy case ordinarily imposes an automatic stay that 

bars creditors from pursuing debt collection activities,3 the Texas Bankruptcy 

Court entered an agreed order authorizing the first lienholder to “pursue its 

state law remedies, . . . including foreclosure, repossession, and/or eviction” 

against the Memorial Property. The first lienholder accordingly foreclosed 

upon the Memorial Property, and Rachel and her children had to move out of 

the house. Thus, although the parties agree that Lenox was entitled to claim a 

homestead exemption under the Texas Property Code on Debtor’s behalf, that 

exemption was essentially worthless.

 

2 See id. § 1112(b)(1) (“[O]n request of a party in interest, and after notice and a 

hearing, the court shall convert a case under [Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code] to a case 

under chapter 7 . . . for cause.”).

See also FED. R. BANKR. P. 1016 (“Death or incompetency of the debtor shall not abate 

a liquidation case under chapter 7 of the Code. In such event the estate shall be administered 

and the case concluded in the same manner, so far as possible, as though the death or 

incompetency had not occurred. If a reorganization, family farmer's debt adjustment, or 

individual's debt adjustment case is pending under chapter 11, chapter 12, or chapter 13, the 

case may be dismissed; or if further administration is possible and in the best interest of the 

parties, the case may proceed and be concluded in the same manner, so far as possible, as 

though the death or incompetency had not occurred.”).

3 11 U.S.C. § 362.

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

5

Lenox therefore amended her schedule of exemptions to instead claim 

$45,000 cash in lieu of exempt homestead property under the Texas Estates 

Code (the “Cash Alternative Exemption”). This exemption would benefit 

Rachel and her minor children.

The Trustee objected to the Cash Alternative Exemption, and the 

bankruptcy court sustained the Trustee’s objection. Lenox now appeals that 

order, and Rachel joins Lenox’s appeal.4

E.

Whereas Lenox sought to claim exemptions on Debtor’s behalf, Rachel 

also claimed various allowances and exemptions on behalf of herself and her 

children pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 502, the provisions of the 

Bankruptcy Code which govern the filing and allowance of claims by creditors.5

Rachel maintains that the Texas Estates Code entitles her to $56,250.00 cash

in lieu of homestead and exempt property, plus a $496,080.00 family 

allowance. Rachel argues that this money should be paid to her as an 

administrative expense or a domestic support obligation out of Debtor’s 

bankruptcy estate.6

 

4 Lenox and Rachel first appealed the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s order denying the 

Cash Alternative Exemption to the district court. The district court certified the case for 

direct appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and we allowed the direct appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). 5 Although Rachel’s claim technically arose post-petition, the Texas Bankruptcy Court 

treated Rachel’s claim as a prepetition claim pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 348(d). See 11 

U.S.C. § 348(d) (“A claim against the estate or the debtor that arises after the order for relief 

but before conversion in a case that is converted under section 1112 [of the Bankruptcy Code] 

. . . shall be treated for all purposes as if such claim had arisen immediately before the date 

of the filing of the petition.”). Neither party challenges the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s 

conclusion on that issue, so we proceed under the assumption that Rachel’s claim is 

effectively a claim for a prepetition debt.

6 In addition to filing a claim pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §§ 501 and 502, Rachel 

also filed a separate document in Debtor’s bankruptcy case entitled “Application for Family 

Allowance and Allowance in Lieu of Homestead and Exempt Property.” The application does 

not specify which section of the Bankruptcy Code it arises under, but the claim and the 

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

6

The Trustee objected to Rachel’s claim as well. The Texas Bankruptcy 

Court sustained the Trustee’s objection to the extent Rachel requested an 

allowance under Texas law to be paid out of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. 

However, the court ruled that Rachel was entitled to an $18,000 allowance 

under Florida law to be paid out of Debtor’s probate estate. That allowance was 

significantly smaller than the amount Rachel requested under Texas law.

The Texas Bankruptcy Court entered a final order which states that “no 

assets from the bankruptcy estate shall be used to pay” Rachel’s claim for a 

probate allowance. However, because the Texas Bankruptcy Court concluded 

that it lacked constitutional authority to enter an award against Debtor’s 

probate estate, the court submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law to the district court respecting that issue. The district court adopted the 

Texas Bankruptcy Court’s proposed findings and conclusions and entered a 

final order granting Rachel “a family allowance from the assets of the Debtor’s 

probate estate in the total amount of $18,000, payable in a single lump sum.”

Rachel now appeals. Rachel has also filed a motion to certify certain 

questions to the Supreme Court of Texas. Lenox is not a party to Rachel’s 

appeal. We have consolidated Rachel’s appeal with Lenox’s appeal.

 

application seek identical relief. The parties discuss the claim and the application 

interchangeably in their briefs, so we will do the same.

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

7

II.

“Bankruptcy court findings of fact are subject to the clearly erroneous 

standard of review and will be reversed only if, on the entire evidence, we are 

left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”7 We 

review a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo.8

III.

We first conclude that the Texas Bankruptcy Court correctly denied the 

cash in lieu of homestead exemption that Lenox claimed on Debtor’s behalf

under Bankruptcy Code § 522.9

A.

“Under the Bankruptcy Code, the commencement of a bankruptcy case 

creates an estate comprising all legal and equitable interests in property . . . of 

the debtor as of that date.”10 However, § 522 of the Bankruptcy Code permits 

the debtor to exempt certain property from the bankruptcy estate if certain 

prerequisites are met.11 Property exempted under § 522 is generally “not liable 

during or after the case for any debt of the debtor that arose . . . before the 

commencement of the case.”12

 

7 Allison v. Roberts (In re Allison), 960 F.2d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing New 

Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Warner Robins, Ga. (In re Delta 

Towers, Ltd.), 924 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1991)).

8 Id. 9 The Trustee argues that, “in substance,” Lenox’s “‘claim in lieu of exemption’ is more 

like a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 502” than a request for an exemption under Bankruptcy Code 

§ 522. Lenox disclaims any reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 502, so we need not discuss this issue.

10 Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

11 Section 522 applies in bankruptcy cases under chapter 7 and 11 alike. See 11 U.S.C. 

§ 103 (“[C]hapters 1, 3, and 5 of this title apply in a case under chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of this 

title [with exceptions not applicable here].”).

12 Id. § 522(c). 

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

8

Lenox, as Debtor’s personal representative, stands in Debtor’s shoes. The 

Texas Bankruptcy Court has authorized her to claim any exemptions to which 

Debtor would have been entitled.

With exceptions not applicable here, a debtor may “take advantage of 

either the federal exemption provisions in the Bankruptcy Code or those 

provided under state law.”13 Here, Lenox claims an exemption on Debtor’s 

behalf under Texas Estates Code § 353.053, which provides:

(a) If all or any of the specific articles of exempt property described 

by Section 353.051(a)14 are not among the decedent's effects, the 

court shall make, in lieu of the articles not among the effects, a 

reasonable allowance to be paid to the decedent's surviving spouse 

and children as provided by Section 353.054.

(b) The allowance in lieu of a homestead may not exceed $45,000, 

and the allowance in lieu of other exempt property may not exceed 

$30,000, excluding the family allowance for the support of the 

surviving spouse, minor children, and adult incapacitated children 

provided by Subchapter C.

This provision permits the surviving spouse “an allowance in lieu of the

[homestead] exemption” in situations where the homestead is “so 

[e]ncumbered with liens that its permanency as a home may be defeated at the 

will of the lienholder.”15

B.

The Texas Bankruptcy Court concluded that Lenox could not claim an 

exemption under Texas Estates Code § 353.053 because Debtor was only 

 

13 Zibman, 268 F.3d at 302 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)).

14 Texas Estates Code § 353.051(a)(1) includes, as exempt property to be set aside, “the 

homestead for the use and benefit of the decedent’s surviving spouse and minor children.”

15 Ward v. Braun, 417 S.W.2d 888, 892 (Tex. Civ. App. 1967) (applying similarlyworded predecessor to TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 353.053 (West 2015)).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

9

entitled to claim state law exemptions under Florida law. We turn first to that 

choice of law issue.

To determine which State’s exemptions are potentially available to a 

debtor under § 522, we first determine whether the debtor was domiciled in a 

single State for the two years preceding his bankruptcy filing. If he was, then 

that State’s exemption laws govern. If he was not, we instead inquire where 

the debtor was domiciled during the period starting on the date 910 days prior 

to filing and ending on the date 730 days prior to filing. We then apply the 

exemptions of the State in which the debtor was domiciled for the longest 

portion of that 180-day period.16

Instead of inquiring where the Debtor was domiciled during the 910-day 

period preceding his bankruptcy petition, the Texas Bankruptcy Court applied 

the law of the State in which the Debtor was domiciled at the time of his death.

If the court had applied the correct choice of law rule, it would have concluded 

that Texas law, not Florida law, governs the exemptions available to Debtor 

under § 522. Debtor filed his bankruptcy petition on January 23, 2013. Because 

Debtor was not domiciled in a single State between January 24, 2011 and 

January 23, 2013, the court should have inquired where Debtor was domiciled 

between July 28, 2010 and January 24, 2011. Debtor was domiciled in Texas 

 

16 This choice of law rule comes from § 522(b)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which 

allows a debtor to exempt:

any property that is exempt under . . . State or local law that is applicable on 

the date of the filing of the petition to the place in which the debtor’s domicile 

has been located for the 730 days immediately preceding the date of the filing 

of the petition or if the debtor’s domicile has not been located in a single State 

for such 730-day period, the place in which the debtor’s domicile was located 

for 180 days immediately preceding the 730-day period or for a longer portion 

of such 180-day period than in any other place.

11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A); see also Camp v. Ingalls (In re Camp), 631 F.3d 757, 760 (5th Cir. 

2011).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

10

during that entire time period. Thus, Texas law determines the state law 

exemptions available to Debtor.

Nevertheless, the Texas Bankruptcy Court ultimately reached the 

correct result when it sustained the Trustee’s objection to the Cash Alternative 

Exemption. As we explain below, Debtor was not eligible for an exemption 

under the Texas Estates Code at the time he filed for bankruptcy. Thus, Lenox 

cannot claim an exemption under the Texas Estates Code on Debtor’s behalf.

C.

A debtor’s eligibility for a state law exemption under § 522 is determined 

by the facts and law in existence on the date that the debtor filed his 

bankruptcy petition.17 This is known as the “Snapshot Rule,” and it “holds that 

all exemptions are determined at the time the bankruptcy petition is filed, and 

that they do not change due to subsequent events.”18

Texas Estates Code § 353.053, by its plain terms, only applies if the 

debtor is deceased.19 Debtor was alive on the petition date, so he was not 

eligible for an allowance under § 353.053 on the date he filed for bankruptcy. 

Thus, under the Snapshot Rule, Lenox cannot claim that exemption on 

Debtor’s behalf under Bankruptcy Code § 522.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1016 further supports our 

conclusion. That rule provides that, if the debtor passes away during the 

 

17 Zibman, 268 F.3d at 300.

18 Viegelahn v. Frost (In re Frost), 744 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

Even where, as here, the case is converted from a chapter 11 reorganization to a 

chapter 7 liquidation, exemptions are still measured by the facts and law in existence on the 

petition date, not the date the case was converted. Stinson v. Williamson (In re Williamson), 

804 F.2d 1355, 1356, 1358-62 (5th Cir. 1986). 19 See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 353.053(a) (West 2015) (describing the allowance as “a 

reasonable allowance to be paid to the decedent's surviving spouse and children” (emphasis 

added)).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

11

pendency of a bankruptcy case, “the estate shall be administered and the case 

concluded in the same manner, so far as possible, as though the death . . . had 

not occurred.”20 Texas Estates Code § 353.053 would be completely inapplicable 

if Debtor was alive today. Thus, denying Lenox’s claimed exemption under 

Texas Estates Code § 353.053 would be most consistent with Rule 1016’s 

admonition to administer the case as if Debtor had never passed away.

Cases from other Circuits support our conclusion as well. In Armstrong 

v. Peterson (In re Peterson),21 the debtor died while his bankruptcy case was 

still pending. The chapter 7 trustee assigned to the debtor’s case “concede[d] 

that at the time of filing, [the debtor] was entitled to and properly claimed a 

homestead exemption.”22 The trustee nevertheless argued that the “homestead 

exemption was relinquished when [the debtor] died during the pendency of his 

bankruptcy without leaving a spouse or a dependent child.”23 The Eighth 

Circuit, applying the Snapshot Rule, disagreed. Because the debtor qualified 

for the exemption on the petition date, the debtor’s subsequent death was 

“irrelevant.”24 Other courts reach the same conclusion as Peterson.25

Thus, when a debtor dies during the pendency of his bankruptcy case, he

does not become ineligible for exemptions that were available to him on the 

petition date. A debtor’s post-petition death has no effect on the exemptions 

 

20 FED. R. BANKR. P. 1016 (emphasis added).

21 897 F.2d 935 (8th Cir. 1990).

22 Id. at 935.

23 Id. at 936.

24 Id. at 939.

25 See Ohanian v. Irwin (In re Irwin), 338 B.R. 839, 851 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (“[I]t is well 

settled that a claimed exemption (if valid under 522(b) at the time of filing) survives the death 

of the debtor.” (citations omitted)); In re Combs, 166 B.R. 417, 417-21 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1994); 

In re Friedman, 38 B.R. 275, 275-77 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1984).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

12

available to him. Therefore, a debtor cannot become eligible for exemptions 

that were unavailable to him by dying after the filing date.26

Lenox attempts to avoid the foregoing result in two ways.27 She first 

argues that this Court’s decisions in Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman)28 and 

Viegelahn v. Frost (In re Frost)29 render the Snapshot Rule inapplicable under 

the facts of this case. We disagree. Zibman and Frost hold that, if a debtor is 

eligible for a state law exemption at the time he files bankruptcy, but the 

debtor fails to comply with the State’s requirements for remaining eligible for 

that exemption throughout the entirety of the bankruptcy case, then the debtor 

loses the exemption. Neither Zibman nor Frost holds that a debtor may become

eligible for an exemption that was originally unavailable to him when 

circumstances change during the pendency of the bankruptcy. Here, Debtor 

was not eligible for an exemption under Texas Estates Code § 353.053 at the 

time he filed bankruptcy, so his subsequent death does not affect the 

availability of the exemption.

Secondly, Lenox argues that Texas Estates Code § 353.053 is merely a 

“different form of the homestead exemption found in the Texas Constitution 

 

26 Courts regularly hold that post-petition changes in circumstances cannot render a 

debtor eligible for exemptions for which he was ineligible on the petition date. See In re 

Braxton, 350 B.R. 710, 710-12 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2005) (debtor who was temporarily 

unemployed on the petition date could not claim exemption available only to employed 

persons, even though debtor “had returned to gainful employment by the time of the 

hearing”); In re Dawson, 266 B.R. 355, 356-59 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2001) (debtor who was 

married on petition date could not claim a homestead different from that of his spouse, even 

though divorce proceedings were pending on petition date and completed shortly thereafter); 

In re Rivera, 5 B.R. 313, 314-16 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1980) (holding that single debtor 

cohabitating with unmarried woman could not claim “head of household” exemption, even 

though woman gave birth to child three days after bankruptcy petition was filed, because as 

of the date debtor filed for bankruptcy, debtor had no legal or moral obligation to continue 

support).

27 Lenox raises other arguments as well, but they are all either inadequately briefed 

or unsupported by authority, so we will not discuss them here.

28 268 F.3d 298.

29 744 F.3d 384.

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

13

and the Texas Property Code.” To reiterate, the parties do not dispute that 

Debtor was entitled to claim a homestead exemption under the Texas 

Constitution and the Texas Property Code on the date he filed bankruptcy; the 

problem is that that exemption is worthless because the Texas Bankruptcy 

Court authorized the first lienholder to foreclose on the Memorial Property.

The relevant homestead exemption provision of the Texas Property Code does 

not contain a cash-in-lieu of homestead provision similar to Texas Estates Code 

§ 353.053.30 The question, then, is whether Lenox can exchange a valueless 

homestead exemption under the Property Code for a valuable cash-in-lieu-ofhomestead exemption under the Estates Code.

Lenox argues that the answer to that question is yes. According to Lenox,

Texas Estates Code § 353.053 “is simply an extension of the Texas Property 

Code and represents an alternative and different form of the real property 

homestead exemption” under Texas Property Code § 41.001. She relies upon 

this Court’s statements in Frost and Zibman that, “[w]hen claiming an 

exemption under state law, . . . ‘it is the entire state law applicable on the filing 

date that is determinative.’”31 Thus, argues Lenox, “the homestead exemption, 

even the cash alternative, relates back to the homestead owned by [Debtor] at 

the commencement of the case.”

As Lenox’s counsel conceded at oral argument, however, there is no 

authority to support her assertion that § 353.053 is merely a different form of

the homestead exemption provided by the Texas Property Code and the Texas 

Constitution. Indeed, the two exemptions are materially different; Texas 

Estates Code § 353.053 applies only in probate proceedings where there is a 

“decedent,” and it contains a cash-in-lieu provision that the relevant chapter

 

30 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 41.001 (West 2015).

31 Frost, 744 F.3d at 386 (emphasis in original) (quoting Zibman, 268 F.3d at 304).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

14

of the Texas Property Code lacks. Thus, if Debtor were still alive, a cash-inlieu exemption under Texas Estates Code § 353.053 would be completely 

unavailable to him. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1016 commands us 

to administer the case as if Debtor’s death had not occurred. As a result,

Debtor’s eligibility for a homestead exemption under the Texas Property Code

does not, in derogation of the Snapshot Rule, retroactively entitle him to a 

exemption under Texas Estates Code § 353.053 for which he was ineligible on 

the petition date.

In sum, the Snapshot Rule bars Lenox from claiming an exemption on 

Debtor’s behalf pursuant to Texas Estates Code § 353.053 and Bankruptcy 

Code § 522. We therefore affirm the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s order denying 

the claimed exemption.32

IV.

Having disposed of Lenox’s appeal, we turn now to Rachel’s appeal. 

Whereas Lenox sought to claim exemptions on Debtor’s behalf under § 522 of 

the Bankruptcy Code, Rachel seeks a family probate allowance and a cash-inlieu-of-homestead exemption on her own behalf as a creditor of Debtor’s estate.

Rachel claims that Texas Estates Code §§ 353.101(a),33 353.053,34 353.054,35

 

32 We need not address Rachel’s argument that the Texas Bankruptcy Court 

improperly struck documents from the record on appeal. The documents excluded from the 

record would not change our conclusion that Debtor was ineligible for the Cash Alternative 

Exemption at the time he declared bankruptcy.

33 “[T]he court shall fix a family allowance for the support of the decedent’s surviving 

spouse, minor children, and adult incapacitated children.” TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 353.101(a) 

(West 2015).

34 “If all or any of the specific articles of exempt property described by Section 

353.051(a) are not among the decedent's effects, the court shall make, in lieu of the articles 

not among the effects, a reasonable allowance to be paid to the decedent's surviving spouse 

and children . . .” Id. § 353.053(a).

35 “The executor or administrator of an estate shall pay an allowance in lieu of exempt 

property in accordance with this section.” Id. § 353.054(a).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

15

and 353.05536 entitle her to $56,250.00 as an allowance in lieu of homestead 

and exempt property, plus a $496,080.00 family allowance.

As noted above, the Texas Bankruptcy Court sustained the Trustee’s 

objection to the extent Rachel requested an allowance under Texas law to be 

paid out of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. However, the court granted Rachel an

$18,000 allowance under Florida law to be paid out of Debtor’s probate estate.

Rachel maintains that the Texas Bankruptcy Court should have 

awarded her the much larger allowance she requested under Texas law. She 

also claims that the court should have allowed her to recover the allowance out 

of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate, instead of Debtor’s probate estate alone.

A.

We first agree with the Texas Bankruptcy Court that Rachel is not 

eligible for a probate allowance under Texas law.

A decedent’s survivor is eligible for a probate allowance under Texas law

only if the decedent was domiciled in the State of Texas at the time of his or 

her death.37 A person is domiciled in a State if he or she (1) resides within the 

State and (2) intends to remain in that State for the indefinite future.38

 

36 “An allowance in lieu of any exempt property shall be paid in the manner selected 

by the decedent's surviving spouse or children of legal age, or by the guardian of the 

decedent's minor children, or by the guardian of each adult incapacitated child or other 

appropriate person, as determined by the court, if there is no guardian . . .” Id. § 353.055(a).

37 Hopkins v. Wright, 17 Tex. 30, 39 (1856) (“The rule is well settled, that the 

succession to the personal estate of a decedent is to be governed by the law of the country in 

which he was domiciled at the time of his death.”); Moore v. Moore, 430 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Tex. 

Civ. App. 1968) (applying predecessor to the Texas Estates Code) (“The family of a decedent 

is not entitled to an allowance in lieu of a homestead out of property in the course of 

administration within the state, unless the decedent at the time of death was domiciled in 

the state.” (quoting 18 TEX. JUR. 2D, DECEDENTS’ ESTATES, § 497, p. 405)).

38 Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y, 334 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 

2003); Alston v. Ulman, 39 Tex. 157, 159 (1873).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

16

We emphasize for the sake of clarity that, unlike Lenox, Rachel is not 

pursuing an exemption on the Debtor’s behalf pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 

522. As a result, neither the Snapshot Rule nor § 522(b)(3)(A)’s choice of law 

rule govern Rachel’s claim under Texas law. Debtor’s domicile at the time of 

his death, not his domicile at the time of his bankruptcy filing or during the 

910-day period preceding his bankruptcy petition, determines Rachel’s 

eligibility for the allowances she seeks.

The Texas Bankruptcy Court found, and the district court agreed, that 

Debtor was domiciled in Florida, not Texas, at the time of his death.39 We must 

defer to the lower courts’ determination of domicile unless it is clearly 

erroneous.40

The record supports the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s finding. Debtor lived 

in Florida for approximately two years prior to his death. There is no evidence

Debtor had intended to move away from Florida before he died. The Texas 

Bankruptcy Court also found that Debtor maintained valuable assets in 

Florida. Although Rachel is correct that Debtor (1) maintained some 

connections with Texas while living in Florida and (2) possessed valuable 

assets located within the state of Texas, the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s finding 

is not clearly erroneous. The Texas Bankruptcy Court appropriately found that 

Debtor was not domiciled in Texas at the time of his death, so Rachel may not 

claim probate allowances under Texas law.

 

39 Rachel suggests that the Texas Bankruptcy Court never made a finding of fact with 

respect to Debtor’s domicile, so there is no factual finding to which this Court may defer. 

Rachel is incorrect; the Texas Bankruptcy Court did indeed make the requisite factual 

finding. See Case No. 15-20034, ROA 8939 (stating in the Conclusions of Law section of the 

opinion that Debtor’s “domicile at death was Florida”); id. at 8905 (“[T]o the extent that any 

Conclusions of Law are construed as Findings of Fact, they are adopted as such.”).

40 Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing 1 J. MOORE, MOORE'S FEDERAL 

PRACTICE § 0.74[3.–3] n. 29); Dos Santos v. Belmere Ltd. P’ship, 516 F. App’x 401, 403 (5th 

Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

17

Rachel attempts to avoid the foregoing result by arguing that, under 

Texas law, it is the domicile of the surviving spouse and children, not the 

domicile of the decedent, which determines whether the survivors may claim 

allowances under Texas probate law. Thus, argues Rachel, even if Debtor was 

domiciled in Florida at the time of his death, Texas law still applies because 

Rachel and her children live in Texas.

Rachel’s argument is contrary to Texas precedent. As the Court of Civil 

Appeals of Texas, Dallas stated in Moore v. Moore: “It is well established in 

Texas that it is the domicile of the decedent, not the widow, which determines 

the right of the widow to an allowance.”41

Rachel argues that this Court should disregard Moore because it “is 

based upon an improper interpretation of” Texas Supreme Court precedent.

Although we are not bound by decisions of intermediate state appellate courts 

if we are “convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state 

would decide otherwise,”42 we are not persuaded that the Texas high court 

would disagree with Moore because the Supreme Court of Texas has repeatedly

held that it is the domicile of the decedent, not the survivor, which determines 

the survivor’s eligibility for allowances and exemptions under Texas’s probate 

laws.43 We must therefore follow Moore and the Texas Supreme Court cases 

upon which it relies.

 

41 Moore, 430 S.W.2d at 251 (emphasis added) (citing 18 TEX. JUR. 2D, DECEDENTS’

ESTATES, § 497, p. 405).

42 Arete v. Gunnerman, 643 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Howe ex rel. Howe 

v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 204 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2000)).

43 See Alston, 39 Tex. at 157-59 (holding that the decedent’s children were not entitled 

to a substituted allowance in lieu of homestead under Texas law, even though the children 

had become permanent residents of Texas, because the decedent was not himself a Texas 

domiciliary at the time of his death); Green v. Crow, 17 Tex. 180, 189-90 (1856) (holding that 

a widow’s homestead rights under Texas’s probate laws “are not dependent on the 

whereabouts of her residence after the death of her husband. If the husband had a domicile 

at the time of his death, she is, under the section in case of insolvency of the estate, entitled 

in full property to that domicile.”).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 17 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

18

Rachel correctly notes that the Texas cases cited above are decades or 

even centuries old. She therefore asserts that these cases are no longer valid 

after the 1971 promulgation of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.

According to Rachel, if the Supreme Court of Texas applied the seven-factor 

test set forth in § 6 of the Restatement (Second),44 it would conclude that 

Rachel’s domicile, not Debtor’s domicile at the time of his death, determines

Rachel’s eligibility for a state law probate allowance.

We need not decide whether Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 

6 would require a different result under the facts of this case. The American 

Law Institute cannot overrule the Supreme Court of Texas. Although the Texas 

Supreme Court has adopted the Restatement (Second) in tort cases,45 it has 

never held that § 6 of the Restatement (Second) governs a survivor’s eligibility 

for probate allowances. Although one intermediate appellate court in Texas 

has cited the Restatement (Second) in a probate case, that court nonetheless 

followed the Supreme Court of Texas’s longstanding rule that “[t]he laws of the 

domicile of a person who dies intestate control in the succession of movable or 

personal property of his estate.”46 In other words, even Texas cases that 

postdate the Restatement (Second) look to the domicile of the decedent rather 

than the domicile of the survivors. Thus, we have no reason to believe that the 

Supreme Court of Texas would jettison its longstanding rule that it is the 

 

44 These seven factors are: (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems; 

(b) the relevant policies of the forum; (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and 

the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue; (d) the 

protection of justified expectations; (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of 

law; (f) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result; and (g) ease in the determination 

and application of the law to be applied. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 6 

(1971).

45 Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex. 1979).

46 In re Garcia-Chapa, 33 S.W.3d 859, 861-62 (Tex. App. 2000) (citing Van Hoose v. 

Moore, 441 S.W.2d 597, 617 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969); Owen v. Younger, 242 S.W.2d 895, 898 

(Tex. Civ. App. 1951); Saner Ragley Lumber Co. v. Spivey, 238 S.W. 912, 915 (Tex. Comm’n 

App. 1930)).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 18 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

19

decedent’s domicile, not the survivor’s domicile, which governs the survivor’s

eligibility for a probate allowance under Texas law.

Rachel argues in the alternative that, even if the domicile of the decedent 

would ordinarily determine the availability of probate allowances under Texas 

law, the survivor’s domicile should instead control where, as here, “the 

decedent moved to a foreign state shortly before his death, created his alleged 

domicile in violation of court orders and his surviving wife and children have 

consistently been domiciled in Texas since before the decedent moved away 

from them.” Under the unusual circumstances of this case, argues Rachel, the 

Court should not inquire where Debtor was domiciled at the time of his death, 

but should instead inquire whether Rachel and her children were “‘forum’ 

shopping to get a better family allowance.” Again, however, all of the relevant 

Texas cases state that it is the domicile of the debtor, not that of the surviving 

spouse and children, that matters. Texas precedent contains no indication that 

the Supreme Court of Texas would recognize Rachel’s proposed exception to its

well-settled domicile rules. In the absence of any such indication, we will not 

read such an exception into Texas law.

Rachel also asks us to certify various questions to the Supreme Court of 

Texas. Essentially, Rachel wants the Supreme Court of Texas to modify its

well-settled domicile rules. For the reasons explained above, however, “there 

is no reason to think that the Texas Supreme Court would deviate from its 

well-established rule and therefore no reason to certify the question to that 

court.”47 We therefore deny Rachel’s motion.

In sum, Rachel is not entitled to the allowances she claims under Texas 

law because Debtor was not a Texas domiciliary at the time of his death. It is 

 

47 Compass Bank v. King, Griffin & Adamson P.C., 388 F.3d 504, 505 n.1 (5th Cir. 

2004) (per curiam).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 19 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

20

irrelevant that Rachel and her children are Texas domiciliaries. The lower 

courts therefore properly denied Rachel’s request for relief under Texas law.

B.

Because Rachel is ineligible for a probate allowance under Texas law,

the Texas Bankruptcy Court instead awarded Rachel a probate allowance 

under Florida law. The Texas Bankruptcy Court concluded that Florida law 

limits a survivor’s family allowance to $18,000 and does not authorize an 

allowance in lieu of homestead or exempt personal property. Therefore, the 

Texas Bankruptcy Court limited Rachel’s recovery to $18,000.

Rachel does not challenge the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s interpretation 

of Florida law; she merely disputes that Florida law applies at all. Nor does 

the Trustee challenge the $18,000 allowance in any way. Because neither party 

assigns any error to the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s application of Florida law, 

we affirm the $18,000 award.

C.

The Texas Bankruptcy Court reasoned that Rachel should recover the 

$18,000 allowance out of Debtor’s probate estate. The court was persuaded

that, because Debtor left “myriad wills” of “questionable validity,” and because 

“no one named as executor in any of the Debtor’s numerous wills has had the 

gumption to probate any of these wills,” it was unlikely that anyone would ever 

institute probate proceedings in state court. The court observed that it

“remain[ed] in possession of the Debtor’s exempt assets – which comprise the 

Debtor’s probate estate – because there is no executor or probate court to which 

this Court could set them aside and entrust them.” Relying on the authority of 

Seiden v. Southland Chenilles, 195 F.2d 899 (5th Cir. 1952), Hull v. Dicks, 235 

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

21

U.S. 584 (1915),48 and Querner v. Querner (In re Querner), 7 F.3d 1199 (5th Cir. 

1993), the court concluded that it “ha[d] an obligation to act to award a family 

allowance that cannot or is not being resolved in state court.”

However, although the Texas Bankruptcy Court concluded that it

possessed jurisdiction over the assets in Debtor’s probate estate, it concluded 

that it lacked constitutional authority to enter a final order on Rachel’s claim 

against the probate estate. The Texas Bankruptcy Court therefore submitted 

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on that issue to the district 

court. The district court adopted the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s proposed 

findings and conclusions in their entirety and ordered “that Rachel Brown 

shall receive a family allowance from the assets of Debtor’s probate estate in 

the total amount of $18,000.00, payable in a single lump sum.” Thus, Rachel 

stands to receive $18,000 to be paid out of property that Lenox successfully 

claimed as exempt on Debtor’s behalf in the bankruptcy case.49

 

48 Although the Texas Bankruptcy Court relied on Seiden and Hull to support its 

conclusion that Rachel could recover the family allowance out of Debtor’s probate estate, the 

court also concluded that neither Seiden nor Hull remain good law to the extent those 

decisions would require the family allowance to be paid out of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. As 

we explain below, however, we have no occasion to decide whether Congress has overruled

Seiden and Hull in whole or in part.

49 See In re Lucio, 251 B.R. 705, 709 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2000) (“If a bankruptcy is 

pending when a person dies, the only assets that go into the probate estate are the property 

claimed as exempt in the debtor’s bankruptcy case . . . and any property acquired by the 

debtor after the commencement of the bankruptcy case. Conversely, the only debts for which 

the probate estate is liable are those incurred by the decedent after the filing of the 

bankruptcy petition. The result is that the deceased debtor’s pre-bankruptcy debts are 

discharged in the bankruptcy, and the deceased debtor’s exempt assets are passed to the 

probate estate free of that debt.” (internal citations omitted)).

As the Texas Bankruptcy Court noted, “the only property in the Debtor’s probate 

estate is property exempted from this bankruptcy estate, since property acquired by an 

individual Chapter 11 debtor after commencement of the case is now included as property of 

the bankruptcy estate.” See 11 U.S.C. § 1115(a)(1) (defining property of the estate for an 

individual in Chapter 11 to include property “that the debtor acquires after the 

commencement of the case”).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 21 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

22

On appeal, neither party objects to the lower courts’ authority to 

authorize payment of the $18,000 allowance to Rachel out of the probate 

estate.50 Under normal circumstances, the proper procedure would have been

for the Texas Bankruptcy Court to transfer the exempt property – which is not 

in the bankruptcy estate – to a state probate court.51 Then Rachel would apply 

to the probate court for the family allowance. But, as the Texas Bankruptcy 

Court found, there is no likelihood that state court probate proceedings will 

ever be initiated. Under these peculiar circumstances, we agree that the lower 

courts did the only practical thing they could do: pay Rachel the $18,000 out of 

the exempt assets. Because neither party objects to the lower courts’ authority 

to do so, we will not disturb the district court’s order paying the family 

allowance out of the probate estate.

D.

Although Rachel does not challenge the federal courts’ authority to pay 

the $18,000 allowance out of the probate estate, she would prefer to be paid out 

of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. The Texas Bankruptcy Court ruled that Rachel’s 

probate claims, “under the law upon which they are based, are only payable 

out of the Debtor’s probate estate, and therefore may not be paid out of the 

Debtor’s separate and distinct bankruptcy estate.” The Texas Bankruptcy 

Court therefore ordered that “no assets from the bankruptcy estate shall be 

used to pay” Rachel’s claim for a probate allowance.

Rachel challenges that order on appeal. As the Trustee correctly argues, 

however, we lack appellate jurisdiction to decide this issue. We do not review 

 

50 The Trustee raised such an objection below, but he has abandoned his objection on 

appeal. 

51 See In re Spiser, 232 B.R. 669, 674 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1999) (“[T]his court does not 

have jurisdiction to determine exemptions in the probate estate; that is a matter for the Texas 

courts.”).

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 22 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

23

bankruptcy court orders that have not been reviewed by the district court.52

Whereas the Texas Bankruptcy Court concluded that it lacked authority to 

enter a final order on Rachel’s claim to the extent she sought payment from 

the probate estate, and therefore submitted proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law to the district court respecting that issue, the Texas 

Bankruptcy Court concluded that it did possess constitutional authority to 

enter a final order denying Rachel’s claim to the extent she sought payment 

from the bankruptcy estate.53 As a result, the Texas Bankruptcy Court entered

a final order which states that “no assets from the bankruptcy estate shall be 

used to pay” Rachel’s claim for a probate allowance. Rachel never filed a notice 

of appeal from the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s final order as required by Federal 

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002.54 Thus, we lack appellate jurisdiction over 

Rachel’s claim against the bankruptcy estate.55

 

52 See Smith v. Gartley (In re Berman-Smith), 737 F.3d 997, 998-1003 (5th Cir. 2013)

(holding that the Court of Appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction unless the appellant files a 

timely notice of appeal with the bankruptcy clerk as required by FED. R. BANKR. P. 8002).

53 The parties do not challenge, and we have no reason to question, the Texas 

Bankruptcy Court’s constitutional authority to enter this final order.

54 Rachel did argue in her objections to the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s proposed 

findings of fact that the Texas Bankruptcy Court “was in error when it found that the family 

allowance can only be paid out of the probate estate.” However, an objection to proposed 

findings and conclusions is not a substitute for a notice of appeal. Compare FED. R. BANKR.

P. 9033(b) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the proposed findings of fact 

and conclusions of law a party may serve and file with the clerk written objections which 

identify the specific proposed findings or conclusions objected to and state the grounds for 

such objection.”), with FED. R. BANKR. P. 8002(a)(1) (“Except as provided in subdivisions (b) 

and (c), a notice of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry 

of the judgment, order, or decree being appealed.”). Rachel never filed a notice of appeal from 

the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s final order denying her claim against Debtor’s bankruptcy 

estate, so that order was not before the district court when it overruled Rachel’s objections to

the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s proposed findings and conclusions.

55 See Berman-Smith, 737 F.3d at 998-1003.

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 23 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Nos. 15-20034 and 15-20148

24

We therefore dismiss the appeal to the limited extent that Rachel 

challenges the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s final order denying her claim against 

Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.56

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Rachel’s appeal to the extent she 

challenges the Texas Bankruptcy Court’s final order providing that “no assets 

from the bankruptcy estate shall be used to pay” Rachel’s claim for a probate 

allowance. We affirm in all other respects. 

AFFIRMED in part and APPEAL DISMISSED in part. Motion to certify 

questions to the Supreme Court of Texas DENIED.

 

56 Rachel claims that she may recover her probate allowance directly out of the 

bankruptcy estate under the authority of Seiden, 195 F.2d 899, and Hull, 235 U.S. 584. The 

Trustee argues, and the Texas Bankruptcy Court agreed, that Congress partially overruled 

Seiden and Hull when it enacted the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. Because we lack appellate 

jurisdiction over this issue, we express no view regarding the continuing vitality of Seiden

and Hull.

 Case: 15-20034 Document: 00513284834 Page: 24 Date Filed: 11/24/2015