IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20589

In the matter of: YEMISI AYOBAMI

 Debtor

DAVID G. PEAKE, Trustee, 

 Appellant

v.

YEMISI AYOBAMI, also known as Yemisi Aregbe, 

 Appellee

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents questions relating to the scope of a Chapter 13 

debtor’s claimed exemptions under § 522 of the Bankruptcy Code. The 

bankruptcy court certified this direct appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2). 

We answer the certified question only, leaving the other issues the parties raise

for another case on another day. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20589 Document: 00514292120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 16-20589

2

I.

On December 1, 2015, the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

adopted a new Schedule C form. This form allows Chapter 13 debtors, by 

checking the appropriate box on the form in the column titled “Amount of the 

exemption you claim,” to exempt from the bankruptcy estate “100% of fair 

market value, up to any applicable statutory limit” of certain property. When 

filing her Schedule C, Debtor Yemisi Ayobami checked this box indicating her 

intent to exempt “100% of fair market value, up to any applicable statutory 

limit” for 14 of her 17 exemptions. In the column titled “Specific laws that 

allow exemption,” Ayobami identified 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(d)(1), (3)–(5), which cap

the value of a debtor’s interest that may be exempted at a designated statutory 

limit.1

Following Ayobami’s Schedule C filing, the parties engaged in multiple

rounds of objections, hearings, and orders. Ultimately, the district court 

allowed Ayobami’s amended exemptions that claimed “100% of fair market 

value, up to any applicable statutory limit” of certain assets, but only after she 

also listed a claimed amount within the statutory limit in the “Specific laws 

that allow exemption” column. The parties then jointly requested certification 

to directly appeal the court’s order allowing Ayobami’s amended exemptions.

The bankruptcy court certified a specific question for appeal, and this court 

granted such leave.2

 

1 We do not address the Schedule C form as it has been completed by Ayobami or 

reviewed by the bankruptcy court in this case; it is irrelevant to the certified question. So to 

the extent the parties are asking us to decide whether Ayobami’s amended Schedule C is 

contrary to the Code, we decline to do so. 

2 A certification by the bankruptcy court on request by a party must include “the 

question itself.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006.

 Case: 16-20589 Document: 00514292120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 16-20589

3

II.

The bankruptcy court certified the following question: “May a debtor 

claiming federal exemptions under § 522 of the Bankruptcy Code ever exempt 

a 100% interest in an asset?” In re Ayobami, No. 15-35488, 2016 WL 3708761, 

at *2 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. July 1, 2016) (emphasis added). The answer is yes. A 

debtor may do so in certain cases because the relevant provisions of § 522 cap 

the value of the asset a debtor may exempt, not the debtor’s interest in that 

asset. 

III.

The commencement of bankruptcy triggers the creation of the 

bankruptcy estate, which includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor 

in property as of the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (2012). 

A debtor is allowed, however, to exempt her interest in certain assets from the

property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d). A “party in interest,” such as 

a trustee, may object to the debtor’s claimed exemptions. 11 U.S.C. § 522(l)

(2012). And “[u]nless a party in interest objects, the property claimed as 

exempt . . . is exempt.” Id. 

Peake, the trustee, argues that a debtor may never exempt a 100% 

interest in an asset under §§ 522(d)(1)–(6) because allowing such an exemption

effectively removes the entire asset from the bankruptcy estate. And because

the relevant subsections of § 522(d) place a monetary-value cap on the claimed 

exemptions, Peake argues, the exemption itself must be “limited to the specific 

amount, not [become] an indefinite [monetary] exemption in-kind to be 

determined at a later date.” 

Both the bankruptcy court and Peake’s counsel point us to § 522 of the 

Bankruptcy Code in addressing the legal question here. The relevant 

exemptions set forth in § 522(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are phrased as follows: 

the debtor may exempt her interest or aggregate interest in certain property 

 Case: 16-20589 Document: 00514292120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 16-20589

4

“not to exceed [a designated amount] in value.” 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(d)(1)–(6). 

Thus § 522(d) limits the value that may be exempted, not the debtor’s interest

that may be exempted. On its face, exempting a 100% interest in an asset does 

not violate any provision of § 522. See also Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. 770, 

794 n.21 (2010) (contemplating a scenario where a debtor “claimed as exempt 

a ‘full’ or ‘100%’ interest” in an asset).3 Of course, there are circumstances

where exempting a 100% interest in an asset would not be allowable under 

§ 522, e.g., when the statutory cap is exceeded. But addressing only the 

certified question before us, we hold that if, when considering any other 

exemptions claimed, the debtor’s entire interest in an asset is less than or equal 

to any dollar-value limitation imposed by the applicable § 522(d) subsection, 

then the debtor may exempt her 100% interest in that asset.4 

What the certified question does not ask us to determine, and thus we 

decline to address, is whether claiming a 100% interest in an asset as exempt

allows the debtor to “walk away” with the asset itself and potentially benefit 

from any post-petition appreciation of it. This concern seems to be at the heart

of the question that the parties wish us to address. Although we do not address 

the question today, we note that the Supreme Court has found “questionable” 

whether “a claim to exempt the full value of the equipment would, if 

unopposed, entitle [the debtor] to the equipment itself as opposed to a payment 

equal to the equipment’s full value,” explaining:

 

3 It is well established in this circuit that, although we are “not bound by dicta, even 

of [this court,] [d]icta of the Supreme Court are, of course, another matter.” Campaign for S.

Equal. v. Bryant, 791 F.3d 625, 627 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015).

4 We make special note of the fact that Ayobami assigned her exempt interest a dollar 

value, disclosed on her Schedule C, within the statutory limits. This opinion does not address 

or decide a factual situation in which a debtor exempts “100% of fair market value, up to any 

applicable statutory limit” of an asset and fails to also designate a specific dollar value within 

the statutory limit. We also make special note that this opinion addresses only the question 

certified to us. We do not address or decide any further issue of the bankruptcy court’s 

holding. 

 Case: 16-20589 Document: 00514292120 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 16-20589

5

Section 541 is clear that title to the equipment passed to [the 

debtor’s] estate at the commencement of her case, and §§ 522(d)(5) 

and (6) are equally clear that her reclamation right is limited to 

exempting an interest in the equipment, not the equipment itself. 

Accordingly, it is far from obvious that the Code would “entitle” 

[the debtor] to clear title in the equipment even if she claimed as 

exempt a “full” or “100%” interest in it . . . .

Id. Because this question of whether a debtor can walk away with the asset, 

as opposed to merely claiming the value of their 100% interest in the asset as 

exempt, is not expressly presented in the certified question, we decline to 

address it. When the case arises, whose facts present the question, we hope to 

rise to the occasion. In the meantime, the bankruptcy courts have ample 

discretion to frame the question in a proper case. 

IV.

In sum, we answer the specific certified question in the affirmative.

There are certain situations where a debtor claiming federal exemptions under 

§ 522 of the Bankruptcy Code can claim an exemption of a 100% interest in an 

asset. What we do not decide is whether doing so entitles such a debtor to clear 

title in that asset and any post-petition appreciation. Having answered the 

question certified to us, we therefore return the case to the bankruptcy court 

for such further proceedings as may be necessary in the disposition of this case. 

 Case: 16-20589 Document: 00514292120 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/03/2018