1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ) BAP No. CC-15-1127-DKiG

) 

EDWARD E. ELLIOTT, ) Bk. No. SV 11-23855-VK

)

Debtor. )

______________________________)

)

EDWARD E. ELLIOTT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) O P I N I O N

)

DIANE C. WEIL, )

Chapter 7 Trustee, )

)

Appellee. )

______________________________)

Submitted on January 21, 2016

at Pasadena, California

Filed - January 28, 2016

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Central District of California

Hon. Victoria S. Kaufman, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding 

Appearances: Andrew Edward Smyth argued for appellant.

John N Tedford, IV, Danning, Gill, Diamond &

Kollitz, LLP argued for appellee.

Before: DUNN, KIRSCHER AND GAN,1 Bankruptcy Judges. 

FILED

JAN 28 2016

SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK

U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

1 Hon. Scott H. Gan, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DUNN, Bankruptcy Judge: 

The Debtor Edward E. Elliott (“Mr. Elliott”) appeals the

bankruptcy court’s order following remand sustaining the chapter

72 trustee’s (“Trustee”) objection to his homestead exemption

claim. We AFFIRM.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is Mr. Elliott’s third appearance before this Panel. 

While detailed factual background information was included in our

two published Opinions in Elliott v. Weil (In re Elliott), 523

B.R. 188 (9th Cir. BAP 2014) (“Elliott I”), and Elliott v. Weil

(In re Elliott), 529 B.R. 747 (9th Cir. BAP 2015) (“Elliott II”),

we include some of that factual background here to provide

context for the current decision.3

1. Events in the Main Case through Elliott I

Mr. Elliott filed for relief in chapter 7 on December 1,

2011. In his petition and schedules, signed under penalty of

perjury, he stated his address as Hiawatha Street in Granada

Hills, California; he did not list any real property in which he

2 Unless otherwise indicated, all chapter and section

references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.

3

 The parties have provided a limited record on appeal. We

have exercised our discretion to review additional documents

filed in the electronic records of Mr. Elliott’s main case, Case

No. SV 11-23855-VK (“Main Case”), and the related adversary

proceeding, Case No. SV 13-01118-VK (“Adversary Proceeding”). 

See O’Rourke v. Seaboard Sur. Co. (In re E.R. Fegert, Inc.), 887

F.2d 955, 957-58 (9th Cir. 1988); Atwood v. Chase Manhattan

Mortg. Co. (In re Atwood), 293 B.R. 227, 233 n.9 (9th Cir. BAP

2003). 

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

had an interest or in which creditors held secured claims; he did

not claim entitlement to a homestead exemption on Schedule C; he

did not disclose any ownership interest in a corporation on

Schedule B; and he did not list creditors (“Judgment Creditors”)

who had obtained a judgment against him in 2006 for fraud and

negligent misrepresentation or any secured creditors.

At his § 341(a) meeting of creditors, Mr. Elliott confirmed

his address as Hiawatha Street, and he testified under oath that

he had read his bankruptcy papers before he had signed them and

that they were true and complete to the best of his knowledge. 

He also testified that he had listed everything of value that he

owned and that he had listed everyone he owed money to in his

schedules. He further testified that he did not own any real

property and that he had not sold, transferred or given away

anything of value in the last four years. 

Based on the information disclosed by Mr. Elliott in his

schedules and in his testimony at the § 341(a) meeting, the

Trustee filed a “No Distribution” report, Mr. Elliott received

his discharge, and the case was closed on March 13, 2012. Less

than two weeks later, Lee Wong Investments, Inc. (“LWI”)

transferred a residential real property in Los Angeles,

California (the “Buckingham Property”) to Mr. Elliott by

quitclaim deed “as a gift.” LWI is a Nevada corporation that Mr.

Elliott does not dispute he organized prepetition and controls. 

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Elliott sent a letter to counsel for the

Judgment Creditors stating that he had acquired the Buckingham

Property after his bankruptcy and demanding that their judgment

liens be removed. His letter caused the Judgment Creditors to

3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

investigate the history of title transactions with respect to the

Buckingham Property. 

As detailed in Elliott I, since 2006, Mr. Elliott had

maintained a continuous interest in the Buckingham Property that

was disguised through a series of transfers. On the date of his

bankruptcy filing, Mr. Elliott owned the Buckingham Property

through his wholly-owned corporation, LWI. However, as noted

above, Mr. Elliott did not disclose any ownership interest in

either the Buckingham Property or LWI in his schedules and did

not even disclose his judgment debt to the Judgment Creditors. 

So, the title manipulations as to the Buckingham Property

remained undetected until after Mr. Elliott received his

discharge and his bankruptcy case was closed.

The Judgment Creditors moved to reopen Mr. Elliott’s

bankruptcy case, which motion was granted, and the Trustee was

reappointed to serve in the reopened case. Mr. Elliott did not

amend his schedules to disclose his interest in the Buckingham

Property until nearly a year later. In his amended schedules,

Mr. Elliott included the Buckingham Property in his amended

Schedule A, valued at $360,000, and stated that Bank of America

held a $120,826 secured claim against it. He also claimed a

$175,000 homestead exemption in the Buckingham Property in his

amended Schedule C under Cal. Code Civ. P. § 704.730(a)(3). He

neglected to list over $100,000 in outstanding real property

taxes assessed against the Buckingham Property. Based on Mr.

Elliott’s valuation of the Buckingham Property, if his homestead

exemption claim were allowed, there would be nothing for his

bankruptcy estate.

4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Trustee filed a timely objection to Mr. Elliott’s

claimed homestead exemption in the Buckingham Property on the

basis of bad faith, and the bankruptcy court sustained the

objection. Mr. Elliott appealed the denial of his exemption

claim to this Panel, and while the appeal was pending, the

Supreme Court issued its decision in Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. ___,

134 S.Ct. 1188 (2014). 

Based on our conclusion that Law v. Siegel precluded

bankruptcy courts from denying claimed exemptions or amendments

to claimed exemptions based on a debtor’s bad faith as a matter

of equity, the Panel vacated the bankruptcy court’s order denying

Mr. Elliott’s homestead exemption claim as to the Buckingham

Property but remanded for the bankruptcy court to determine if

Mr. Elliott’s homestead exemption claim could be denied on some

other basis under federal bankruptcy or California state law. 

See Elliott I, 523 B.R. at 193-98.

2. Events in the Adversary Proceeding through Elliott II

Meanwhile, the Trustee had filed the Adversary Proceeding to

revoke Mr. Elliott’s discharge and to require that the Buckingham

Property be turned over to the Trustee on behalf of the

bankruptcy estate under § 542(a). The Trustee also conducted a

continued § 341(a) meeting at which Mr. Elliott admitted that he

lived at the Buckingham Property when he filed his bankruptcy

petition, that he considered it to be his home, and that he had

purchased it in 1989.

After filing a motion for an order setting aside his

default, Mr. Elliott filed an answer to the Adversary Proceeding

complaint in pro se that did not assert any affirmative defenses. 

5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

After obtaining counsel, he filed an amended answer asserting as

his only affirmative defense that any “mistakes on the schedules

were the result of debtor’s attorney’s mistakes.”

In January 2014, the Trustee filed a motion for summary

judgment (“Summary Judgment Motion”) in the Adversary Proceeding

seeking revocation of Mr. Elliott’s discharge under § 727(d)(1)

and turnover of the Buckingham Property. Mr. Elliott opposed the

Summary Judgment Motion. The bankruptcy court held a hearing on

the Summary Judgment Motion on March 19, 2014, at which the

parties appeared through counsel and argued their positions. On

April 7, 2014, the bankruptcy court granted the Summary Judgment

Motion and entered a “Judgment Vesting Property in Trustee and

Revocation of Discharge.” Mr. Elliott appealed.

On appeal, the Panel vacated the judgment. It concluded

that the Trustee’s discharge revocation claim was barred by the

running of the limitations period in § 727(e)(1) and had to be

remanded for dismissal. The turnover portion of the judgment

likewise was vacated and remanded, in light of the Panel’s prior

determination in Elliott I that denial of Mr. Elliott’s homestead

exemption claim on bad faith grounds was inappropriate, for the

bankruptcy court to make findings as to whether the Buckingham

Property was “of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate,”

as required under § 542(a). See Elliott II, 529 B.R. at 754-55.

3. Events in the Adversary Proceeding Following Remand

Following remand of the Adversary Proceeding, the bankruptcy

court dismissed the Trustee’s claim to revoke Mr. Elliott’s

discharge and established a schedule for the parties to submit

legal memoranda and evidence as to whether the estate’s interest

6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in the Buckingham Property was sufficiently consequential to

warrant turnover. 

The Trustee submitted a brief (“Valuation Brief”) supported

by the declarations of the Trustee, her counsel Aaron E. De

Leest, and appraiser David S. Serber. The Trustee had obtained

appraisals of the Buckingham Property as of April 7, 2014

($580,000) and as of June 15, 2015 ($600,000). Unpaid real

property taxes and associated penalties as of June 24, 2015, for

2006 through 2011 and 2013 through 2015 totaled $107,495.05. 

The Community Development Department of the City of Los

Angeles (“CDD”) had a deed of trust recorded against the

Buckingham Property on January 10, 1986, securing an indebtedness

of $25,000. Bank of America, N.A. (“B of A”) had a deed of trust

recorded against the Buckingham Property on November 12, 2004,

securing an indebtedness of $120,360.77 as of June 15, 2015. The

Trustee did not contest the validity or priority of the CDD and B

of A trust deed liens.

A deed of trust in favor of Hollywood Damage Control &

Recovery (“HDCR”) to secure an indebtedness in the amount of

$800,000 was recorded on October 31, 2005. However, the Trustee

had avoided and preserved the HDCR trust deed lien for the

benefit of the estate. Los Angeles County (the “County”) had

recorded a personal property tax lien against the Buckingham

Property in the amount of $1,449.75 on June 9, 2005. For

purposes of the Adversary Proceeding, the Trustee assumed the

validity of the County’s lien.

A judgment in the amount of $127,134.00 in favor of the

Inglewood Family Corporation (“IFC”) had been entered on May 13,

7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2005, against Mr. Elliott and another entity and had been

recorded as a judgment lien against the Buckingham Property. 

However, the judgment was not renewed by IFC within 10 years

after it was entered. Accordingly, under Cal. Code Civ. P.

§ 683.020, the judgment was no longer enforceable, and the

judgment lien was extinguished. The Judgment Creditors also had

obtained judgment liens against the Buckingham Property, but by

stipulation with the Trustee approved by the bankruptcy court,

the Judgment Creditors had agreed that the Buckingham Property

could be sold free and clear of their judgment liens, and their

claims would be treated as nonpriority unsecured claims in the

Main Case. Finally, the Trustee projected 8% costs of sale

(including a 6% real estate commission) with respect to the

Buckingham Property. 

The Trustee recognized that she bore the burden of proof to

establish that the estate was entitled to turnover of the

Buckingham Property, but argued that Mr. Elliott had the burden

to establish that the property had no consequential value or

benefit for the estate. Then, through various calculations, the

Trustee ultimately presented a demonstration that if the

Buckingham Property were valued at $600,000, after payment of

priority liens, the net value for the estate would be $297,694.43

(allowing for payment of the County’s personal property tax lien)

or $299,144.18 (if the County’s personal property tax lien were

treated as subordinate). In either event, the Trustee argued

that the Buckingham Property had “consequential value and benefit

to the estate.”

Mr. Elliott opposed (“Opposition”). He had obtained an

8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

appraisal for the Buckingham Property as of April 15, 2014

valuing it at $450,000. Deducting costs of sale and the

uncontested liens of CDD, B of A and for real property taxes,

totaling approximately $252,856, would leave a balance of

approximately $197,144. Ignoring the Trustee’s argument that she

stepped into the shoes of the avoided HDCR trust deed lien, Mr.

Elliott argued that if he prevailed on his homestead exemption

claim, there would be no significant payout to unsecured

creditors. He further requested a continuance to obtain a

current appraisal of the Buckingham Property.

The bankruptcy court heard the issue as to whether

consequential value to the estate supported turnover as claimed

by the Trustee at a hearing (“Turnover Hearing”) on July 22,

2015. At the Turnover Hearing, counsel for Mr. Elliott requested

time to obtain an update of his appraisal of the Buckingham

Property, agreeing with counsel for the Trustee that the

bankruptcy court should make its determination based on the

current value of the property as at June 15, 2015. That request

was granted, but ultimately, Mr. Elliott agreed with the

Trustee’s $600,000 valuation for the property.

Following the Turnover Hearing, the bankruptcy court issued

written findings of fact and conclusions of law (“Findings”) on

August 13, 2015. In its Findings, the bankruptcy court found

that the lien for unpaid real property taxes and the trust deed

liens of CDD and B of A amounted to $107,495.05, $25,000, and

$120,360.77, respectively, for a total of approximately

$252,855.82 as of June 15, 2015. At the Turnover Hearing,

counsel for Mr. Elliott represented that nothing was owed to HDCR

9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and that Mr. Elliott had obtained a reconveyance of HDCR’s trust

deed. For purposes of determining whether the Buckingham

Property was of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate,

the bankruptcy court assigned a value of $0.00 to the HDCR trust

deed lien. Based on the absence of evidence other than as

reflected in the Trustee’s preliminary title report for the

Buckingham Property dated June 15, 2015, the bankruptcy court

valued the County’s personal property tax lien at $1,449.75. As

for IFC’s judgment lien, since it was unenforceable under

California law, the bankruptcy court assigned it a value of

$0.00. Because of the Trustee’s approved stipulation with the

Judgment Creditors, the bankruptcy court assigned a value of

$0.00 to their judgment liens.

Based on the record of evidence and arguments made by the

parties, the bankruptcy court determined the net value of the

Buckingham Property for the benefit of the estate, exclusive of

Mr. Elliott’s homestead exemption claim, as $297,694.43,

calculated as follows:

Value $600,000.00

Less:

Estimated costs of sale (8% of gross value) $ 48,000.00

Real property taxes and penalties 107,495.05

CDD lien 25,000.00

B of A lien 120,360.77

HDCR lien 0.00

County personal property tax lien 1,449.75

IFC judgment lien 0.00

Judgment Creditors judgment liens 0.00

Total Net Value $297,694.43

Recognizing that Mr. Elliott still was pursuing a homestead

exemption claim for $175,000, the bankruptcy court found that

even if Mr. Elliott prevailed on his homestead exemption claim,

10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

subtracting $175,000 from $297,694.43 would leave $122,694.43 of

net value available to the estate. Accordingly, with or without

allowing a homestead exemption, the Buckingham Property was not

of “inconsequential value or benefit to the estate.” The

bankruptcy court noted that this Panel’s decision in Elliott II

had not disturbed its prior determinations that 1) the Buckingham

Property was property of Mr. Elliott’s bankruptcy estate; 

2) title to the Buckingham Property was vested in the Trustee;

and 3) the Buckingham Property could be used, sold or leased by

the Trustee under § 363. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court would

enter a judgment requiring Mr. Elliott to turn over the

Buckingham Property to the Trustee.

One day later, on August 14, 2015, the bankruptcy court

entered a judgment (“Turnover Judgment”) on the Trustee’s

§ 542(a) claim consistent with its Findings, determining that the

Buckingham Property was property of Mr. Elliott’s bankruptcy

estate, vested in the Trustee, and requiring that Mr. Elliott

“immediately deliver and turn over possession of the Buckingham

Property to the Trustee.” The Turnover Judgment was not

appealed.

4. Events in the Main Case following remand

Following remand in the Main Case under Elliott I, the

bankruptcy court established a briefing schedule for the parties

to submit further legal memoranda and supporting evidence on the

issues as to whether the Trustee’s objection to Mr. Elliott’s

claimed homestead exemption could be sustained 1) under

§ 522(g)(1), or 2) based on Mr. Elliott’s failure to satisfy the

California state law requirement for an “automatic Article 4”

11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

homestead exemption, i.e., that Mr. Elliott have resided at the

Buckingham Property continuously from the time a judgment

creditor’s lien attached to the property until the court could

determine that the subject dwelling was in fact a homestead.

On February 13, 2015, the Trustee filed her memorandum in

support of Trustee’s objection to Mr. Elliott’s claimed homestead

exemption (“Trustee Memorandum”), supported by Mr. Elliott’s

petition filed in the Main Case; transcripts of his testimony

under oath at the original and subsequent § 341(a) meetings; a

transcript of Mr. Elliott’s deposition testimony; and a copy of

the declaration of Juanita Jehdian, Mr. Elliott’s fiancee. The

Trustee began her argument with respect to the application of

§ 522(g)(1) by quoting the relevant provisions of the statute:

Notwithstanding sections 550 and 551 of this title, the

debtor may exempt under subsection (b) of this section

property that the trustee recovers under section

510(c)(2), 542, 543, 550, 551, or 553 of this title, to

the extent that the debtor could have exempted such

property under subsection (b) of this section if such

property had not been transferred, if –

(1)(A) such transfer was not a voluntary transfer 

of such property by the debtor; and

 (B)the debtor did not conceal such property . . . .

The Trustee then posited that it was clear that Mr. Elliott

concealed the Buckingham Property both from the Trustee and from

the bankruptcy court, relying on a portion of the analysis from

this Panel in Elliott I:

The essence of Elliott’s appeal in utilizing Law v.

Siegel to shield his misconduct from functioning as

lawful grounds to deny his homestead exemption has led

to, as Trustee bluntly but accurately asserts, Elliott

practically admitting he concealed the asset and acted

in bad faith. Indeed, Elliott does not dispute that he

failed to disclose his interest in the Buckingham

Property in his original schedules. He admits claiming

Hiawatha Street as his “street address” on his petition

12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

even though he knew he did not live there. Elliott

further acknowledges that at the § 341(a) meeting he

claimed his forms were true and complete, all the while

knowing the bankruptcy court had no knowledge of the

Buckingham Property he allegedly resides in and

controlled through LWI.

Accordingly, we conclude that § 522(g)(1) is

applicable and an important limitation on Elliott’s

claimed homestead exemption for the bankruptcy court to

consider on remand.

Elliott I, 523 B.R. at 198.

With respect to Mr. Elliott’s automatic homestead claim

under California law, the Trustee admitted that “continuous

residency, rather than continuous ownership, controls the Article

4 analysis.” The Trustee then surveyed the available evidence

from Mr. Elliott’s petition and schedules; his § 341(a) meeting

testimony; his deposition testimony; and the declaration of

Juanita Jehdian. The Trustee noted that from the outset of the

Main Case, Mr. Elliott asserted that his address was on Hiawatha

Street; he did not disclose any interest in the Buckingham

Property or the corporation that nominally held title to the

Buckingham Property; and he asserted without qualification that

his bankruptcy papers were true and complete. Only after the

Main Case was reopened at the behest of the Judgment Creditors

did he begin to temporize. Following reopening, Mr. Elliott

amended his schedules to include the Buckingham Property and

assert a homestead exemption in it, and he testified at the

second § 341(a) meeting that he lived there; he considered it his

home; and he purchased it in 1989. However, when the Trustee

asked him about the Hiawatha Property, Mr. Elliott testified,

“That was a uh place where my fiancé [sic] and her son and I was,

would come over there quite a bit.” At his deposition, Mr.

13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Elliott was asked and answered the following questions:

Q. “[Y]ou said you were living in and out of the Hiawatha

Street; is that correct?”

A. “That’s correct.”

Q. “How long did you live there before moving back to

Buckingham [Property]?”

A. “It was not a permanent address for me.”

In her declaration, Ms. Jehdian stated that she had been a

frequent visitor to the Buckingham Property and that she knew

that Mr. Elliott resided there in December 2011. 

The Trustee recognized that claimed exemptions are

presumptively valid, and the objecting party bears the burden of

proving that an exemption is not properly claimed. See, e.g.,

Carter v. Anderson (In re Carter), 182 F.3d 1027, 1029-30 n.3

(9th Cir. 1999). However, once the Trustee produces evidence to

rebut the presumption, the burden shifts to Mr. Elliott to

present “unequivocal evidence to demonstrate the exemption is

proper.” Id. The Trustee’s analysis of the evidence in Mr.

Elliott’s case was that the bankruptcy court was “clearly placed

in a vexed position to decide which of [Mr. Elliott’s] lies are

to be believed and how to determine credibility of his

inconsistent statements and filings.” In these circumstances,

the Trustee argued that Mr. Elliott simply could not present

unequivocal evidence to establish that his homestead exemption

claim in the Buckingham Property was appropriate, and her

objection to the claimed homestead exemption should be sustained.

In his opposing response (“Response”), Mr. Elliott argued

that § 522(g)(1) simply was not applicable because “[t]here is no

14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court order in this case setting aside a transfer.” He also

submitted his own supporting declaration with evidence that he

continuously resided at the Buckingham Property and was living

there on the petition date. 

The bankruptcy court heard the matter at a hearing on March

19, 2015 (“Exemption Objection Hearing”). The bankruptcy court

posted a tentative ruling in advance of the Exemption Objection

Hearing sustaining the Trustee’s objection to Mr. Elliott’s

homestead exemption claim based on the application of

§ 522(g)(1). The tentative ruling was not included in Mr.

Elliott’s excerpts of record, but it is included as item number

94 on the Main Case docket, and we have reviewed it. At the

Exemption Objection Hearing itself, after hearing arguments from

counsel, the bankruptcy court announced its ruling denying a

homestead exemption to Mr. Elliott applying § 522(g)(1) based on

the following analysis:

[The Buckingham Property] was property of the estate

subject to turnover. The residence was subject to

turnover because [Mr. Elliott] held it in a whollyowned corporation which he didn’t disclose in his

schedules or at his 341(a). He concealed that that’s

where he lived. He didn’t put it on his petition. He

didn’t inform the [Trustee] during his 341(a) that’s

where he lived. He didn’t list his interest in the

corporation that held the property. He then three

weeks after he got his discharge . . . transferred the

property back to himself in his own name, and then

wrote a letter to creditors about how their liens

against the property weren’t good because it was after

acquired and he had gotten a discharge. So, they

couldn’t have liens against this property that he had

always held in his own corporation and hadn’t disclosed

as his residence.

. . . .

So, I mean, the point is that he – I mean, he doesn’t even

dispute that he concealed it. He’s just saying that, well,

that the turnover action isn’t sufficient to satisfy

15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

522(g)(1), but, I mean, 542 satisfies, and we have a

judgment. And I guess if it gets reversed then we’ll have

to revisit it, but it’s not reversed yet, and we’re going to

say he doesn’t get a homestead exemption based on 11 U.S.C.

Section 522(g)(1). 

March 19, 2015 Hr’g Tr., at 9:21-10:23. 

Counsel for the Trustee submitted an order (“Exemption

Denial Order”) consistent with the bankruptcy court’s oral ruling

sustaining the Trustee’s objection to Mr. Elliott’s homestead

exemption claim that the bankruptcy court signed and entered on

April 8, 2015. Mr. Elliott filed a timely appeal. 

II. JURISDICTION

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1334 and 157(b)(2)(B). An order denying a debtor’s exemption

claim is a final order. Preblich v. Battley, 181 F.3d 1048, 1056

(9th Cir. 1999). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158.

III. ISSUES

1. Did the bankruptcy court err in denying Mr. Elliott’s

claimed homestead exemption under § 522(g)(1), by its terms or as

a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Law v. Siegel?

2. Did the bankruptcy court err in failing to rule on Mr.

Elliott’s entitlement to a homestead exemption claim under

California law?

IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 

The denial of a debtor’s exemption claim presents questions

of law that we review de novo. Kelley v. Locke (In re Kelley),

300 B.R. 11, 16 (9th Cir. BAP 2003). De novo review means that

we review a matter anew, as if no decision previously had been

rendered. Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009).

We review the bankruptcy court’s fact findings underlying

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

its legal conclusions for clear error. Bronitsky v. Bea (In re

Bea), 533 B.R. 283, 285 (9th Cir. BAP 2015). We must affirm the

bankruptcy court’s fact findings unless we determine that those

findings are “(1) ‘illogical,’ (2) ‘implausible,’ or (3) without

‘support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the

record.’” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir.

2009) (en banc), quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.,

470 U.S. 564, 577 (1985).

We may affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court on any

basis supported by the record. ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R.

Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014); Shanks v. Dressel, 540

F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008).

V. DISCUSSION

As in Elliott I, Mr. Elliott brandishes the Supreme Court’s

decision in Law v. Siegel as a talisman to ward off the Trustee’s

objection to his homestead claim in the Buckingham Property. So

we commence our analysis by considering exactly what the Supreme

Court decided and did in Law v. Siegel and what it did not do.

A. Law v. Siegel and its implications in this appeal

Stephen Law filed a chapter 7 case and claimed a homestead

exemption in his residence property (“Residence”). The trustee

did not object, and Mr. Law’s homestead exemption was allowed. 

Mr. Law also listed two liens against the Residence: a first deed

of trust for $146,156.52 in favor of Washington Mutual Bank and a

second deed of trust for $156,929.04 in favor of “Lin’s Mortgage

& Associates,” securing an alleged debt to a person named “Lili

Lin.” After lengthy and expensive litigation over a period of

years, the bankruptcy court found that “no person named Lili Lin

17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ever made a loan to [Mr. Law] in exchange for the disputed deed

of trust,” and “the loan was a fiction, meant to preserve [Mr.

Law’s] equity in his residence beyond what he was entitled to

exempt” by perpetrating “a fraud on his creditors and the court.” 

Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 1193 (2014). Consistent with

applicable Ninth Circuit law at the time, see Latman v. Burdette,

366 F.3d 774 (2004), the bankruptcy court “surcharged” Mr. Law’s

homestead exemption to pay a portion of the trustee’s attorney’s

fees.

Mr. Law appealed, and this Panel and the Ninth Circuit

affirmed the bankruptcy court, but the Supreme Court granted

certiorari and reversed. It concluded that although bankruptcy

courts have authority under § 105(a) to “issue any order,

process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry

out the provisions” of the Bankruptcy Code, § 105(a) “does not

allow the bankruptcy court to override explicit mandates of other

sections of the Bankruptcy Code.” Id. at 1194, quoting 2 Collier

on Bankruptcy ¶ 105.01[2], p. 105-06 (16th ed. 2013). 

Specifically, in Mr. Law’s case, the Supreme Court held that

surcharging Mr. Law’s homestead exemption under § 105(a) or under

the bankruptcy court’s inherent sanctioning authority was invalid

in light of § 522(k)’s specific directive that property that a

debtor properly exempts generally “is not liable for payment of

any administrative expense.” Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. at 1195.

The Supreme Court did not stop there in Law v. Siegel. 

Underlining its larger point that “whatever equitable powers

remain in the bankruptcy courts must and can only be exercised

within the confines of” the Bankruptcy Code, id. at 1194, quoting

18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 206 (1988), the

Supreme Court went on to state that “§ 522 does not give courts

discretion to grant or withhold exemptions based on whatever

considerations they deem appropriate.” Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct.

at 1196. It concluded that the Bankruptcy Code does not confer

on bankruptcy courts “a general, equitable power . . . to deny

exemptions based on a debtor’s bad-faith conduct.” Id. We

listened, and that was the basis for our decision to vacate and

remand in Elliott I, founded on our conclusion that Law v. Siegel

“abrogated our authority to deny exemptions or amendments to

exemptions based on a debtor’s bad faith.” Elliott I, 523 B.R.

at 193.

However, the Supreme Court also recognized that “§ 522 sets

forth a number of carefully calibrated exceptions and limitations

[to debtors’ exemptions], some of which relate to the debtor’s

misconduct.” Id. Law v. Siegel does not evince any overweening

affection or solicitude for dishonest debtors in bankruptcy by

the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly

emphasized that “[t]he principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code

is to grant a ‘fresh start’ to the ‘honest but unfortunate

debtor.’” Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365, 367

(2007), quoting Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286 (1991), and

Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 244 (1934) (emphasis

added). But, the Supreme Court in Law v. Siegel sent a clear

message: “The Code’s meticulous – not to say mind-numbingly

detailed – enumeration of exemptions and exceptions to those

exemptions confirms that courts are not authorized to create

additional exceptions.” Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. at 1196, citing

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S.Ct. 1943, 1953 (2013); and TRW Inc. v.

Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28-29 (2001). 

Among those detailed exceptions is § 522(g)(1). We noted in

Elliott I that § 522(g)(1) might apply to support denial of Mr.

Elliott’s homestead exemption claim in the Buckingham Property,

see Elliott I, 523 B.R. at 197-98, and the bankruptcy court in

fact based its decision to deny Mr. Elliott’s homestead exemption

claim following remand on § 522(g)(1). Accordingly, we proceed

to review application of § 522(g)(1) in this case. 

B. Section 522(g)(1) – its terms and application

Section 522(g)(1), in relevant part, provides:

[T]he debtor may exempt under subsection (b) of this

section property that the trustee recovers under

section 510(c)(2), 542, 543, 550, 551, or 553 of this

title, to the extent that the debtor could have

exempted such property under subsection (b) of this

section if such property had not been transferred, if –

(1)(A) such transfer was not a voluntary transfer

of such property by the debtor; and 

(B) the debtor did not conceal such property . . . .

We begin our analysis by focusing, as we must, on the

operative terms of the statute. “The starting point in

discerning congressional intent is the existing statutory text.” 

Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004), citing

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999). “It

is well established that ‘when the statute’s language is plain,

the sole function of the courts – at least where the disposition

required by the text is not absurd – is to enforce it according

to its terms.’” Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. at 534,

quoting Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank,

N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000).

As stated in Collier’s, § 522(g) “allows the debtor to

20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

exempt property that the trustee recovers under [various sections

of the Bankruptcy Code, § 542 being relevant in this case] as

long as the transfer was involuntary and the property was not

concealed by the debtor.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 522.12[1]

(Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, eds., 16th ed.) (hereinafter

cited as Collier on Bankruptcy) (emphasis in original). There is

no real dispute here about concealment. “The debtor might be

found to have concealed the property if the debtor takes

affirmative action to mislead creditors about whether particular

property existed.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 522.12[2][b]. 

When Mr. Elliott filed his bankruptcy petition and

schedules, he stated under penalty of perjury that he had no

interest in the Buckingham Property or the corporation that held

title to the Buckingham Property. He further did not schedule

any secured or judgment lien creditors whose lien claims might

have alerted the Trustee to Mr. Elliott’s connection to the

Buckingham Property.

While Mr. Elliott quibbles in his opening brief that he

included the Hiawatha Street address as his “street address”

rather than his “residence” in his petition and never stated at

the initial § 341(a) meeting that he resided at Hiawatha Street,

he concedes that he failed to disclose in his schedules: 1) his

ownership interest in the Buckingham Property; 2) his ownership

interests in two corporations that he controlled and owned; and

3) the claim of at least one judgment creditor. He further

concedes that he stated under oath at his § 341(a) meeting that

he did not own any real property and that he did not sell or give

away anything of value in the previous four years. Appellant’s

21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Opening Brief, at 9-10. At the Exemption Objection Hearing, Mr.

Elliott’s counsel conceded that Mr. Elliott “did not disclose the

company. He did not disclose the property.” We conclude that

the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Mr. Elliott

concealed his interest in the Buckingham Property for purposes of

§ 522(g)(1)(B).

The bankruptcy court found that the Trustee’s judgment in

his § 542(a) turnover action constituted a recovery under § 542

for purposes of § 522(g).4 This Panel previously considered the

meaning of the term “recover” in the context of § 522(g) in Hitt

v. Glass (In re Glass), 164 B.R. 759, 763 (9th Cir. BAP 1994),

aff’d, 60 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 1995):

As to everyday usage, Webster’s defines “recover’ as

“to get back” or “to regain.” Webster’s New World

Dictionary 1122 (3d ed. 1988). In the legal context,

“recover” is defined as above, but is also defined as

“to be successful in a suit, to collect or obtain

amount, to have judgment, to obtain favorable or final

judgment, to obtain in any legal manner in contrast to

voluntary payment.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1147 (5th

ed. 1979).

In the Exemption Denial Order, the bankruptcy court made the

following specific findings:

On June 4, 2013, Trustee filed a turnover action

against [Debtor] for the . . . [Buckingham] Property

under § 542. Trustee has succeeded in that action. 

Hence, this constitutes a “recovery” as contemplated by

§ 522(g), which then brings the . . . Property within

the scope of the § 522(g)(1) limitation on [Mr.

Elliott’s] right to claim an exemption in property he

voluntarily transferred and concealed.

4

 The judgment that existed at the time the bankruptcy

court made that finding subsequently was vacated in Elliott II. 

However, following remand and further proceedings in the

Adversary Proceeding, the corresponding Turnover Judgment was

entered, was not appealed and is final.

22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exemption Denial Order, at 5.

Mr. Elliott does not contest that the Trustee made a

“recovery” under § 542 in the Adversary Proceeding. He could not

do so credibly. Mr. Elliott opposed the Trustee’s claim for

turnover of the Buckingham Property at every stage of the

Adversary Proceeding up to the entry of the Turnover Judgment. 

His apparent defense was based on the argument that unpaid real

property taxes coupled with consensual liens, with or without his

claimed homestead exemption, ate up the entire value of the

Buckingham Property, leaving nothing for the bankruptcy estate. 

The bankruptcy court ultimately rejected that argument, finding

total value of the Buckingham Property net of tax liens and

allowable consensual liens to be $297,694.43. Even if Mr.

Elliott prevailed on his $175,000 homestead exemption claim,

$122,694.43 of “consequential” net value would remain for the

estate. As noted above, the Turnover Judgment based on these

findings was not appealed.5

5 Interestingly, as late as the Exemption Objection

Hearing, Mr. Elliott’s counsel asserted that the $800,000 HDCR

trust deed lien, which “the [Trustee] says it’s phony,” was “way

too old to get rid of, therefore there [is] no equity.” Yet, in

the Opposition to the Trustee’s Valuation Brief, Mr. Elliott did

not even mention the HDCR trust deed lien. And, in its Findings,

the bankruptcy court noted that counsel for Mr. Elliott

represented at the Turnover Hearing that nothing was actually

owed to HDCR, and Mr. Elliott had obtained a reconveyance of

HDCR’s trust deed. On this record, one might reasonably conclude

that HDCR was Mr. Elliott’s “Lili Lin.” Fortunately, we do not

have to consider this matter further in the disposition of this

appeal.

23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. Elliott does argue that § 522(g)(1) is inapplicable to

deny his homestead exemption claim because the Trustee did not

recover property that was “transferred” for the benefit of the

estate in his § 542 action, and “the reference to Section 542 [in

§ 522(g)(1)] describes one of the mechanisms for recovering a

transfer.” We disagree with Mr. Elliott’s argument for the

following reasons.

First, in § 522(g) itself, there is no explicit link between

the language “property that the trustee recovers under section

. . . 542” and “to the extent that the debtor could have exempted

such property . . . if such property had not been transferred.” 

The statute by its terms does not require that the recovery be of

or from a transfer. 

Section 542(a), pursuant to which the Trustee obtained the

Turnover Judgment, provides in relevant part:

[A]n entity . . . in possession, custody, or control,

during the case, of property that the trustee may use,

sell, or lease under section 363 of this title, or that

the debtor may exempt under section 522 of this title

shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such

property or the value of such property, unless such

property is of inconsequential value or benefit to the

estate.

“Possession, custody or control” is not a defined term in the

Bankruptcy Code, but the statute requires that the subject

property must have been in the possession, custody or control of

a third party “during the case.” 5 Collier on Bankruptcy

¶ 542.02[1]. “‘During the case’ has been held to include the

pendency of the overall bankruptcy case and not just the

adversary proceeding seeking turnover.” Id. See Beaman v.

Vandeventer Black, LLP (In re Shearin), 224 F.3d 353, 356 (4th

24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1149 (2001); and Boyer v.

Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. (In re USA

Diversified Prods., Inc.), 100 F.3d 53, 55-56 (7th Cir. 1996). 

There is no dispute that on the petition date, LWI rather than

Mr. Elliott held title to the Buckingham Property.

In the Exemption Denial Order, the bankruptcy court made the

following findings:

Debtor [Mr. Elliott] voluntarily transferred title to

the [Buckingham] Property to a corporation owned by the

son of Debtor’s business partner. Later, Debtor again

transferred the Property to a corporation that was

wholly owned by Debtor. In his bankruptcy petition and

schedules and during his § 341(a) meeting of creditors,

Debtor concealed these transfers and his interest in

the Property. After he received his discharge, Debtor

transferred the Property back into his name.

Exemption Denial Order, at 5. Mr. Elliott does not dispute those

findings. So, on the petition date, the transfer to LWI was

still in effect. Based on the schedules Mr. Elliott filed, he

could not claim an exemption in the Buckingham Property because

he affirmed under penalty of perjury that he did not have an

exemptible interest in the property. “If the exempt property is

transferred, the debtor has in essence waived the 

exemption . . . .” Fox v. Smoker (In re Noblit), 72 F.3d 757,

758 (9th Cir. 1995). And as Mr. Elliott admits, exemptions are

determined as of the petition date. See § 522(b)(3)(A); 

4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 522.05[1]; Wolfe v. Jacobson (In re

Jacobson), 676 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir. 2012), citing White v.

Stump, 266 U.S. 310, 313 (1924); In re Dore, 124 B.R. 94, 98

(Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1991).

This Panel and the Ninth Circuit faced a similar situation

in Glass v. Hitt (In re Glass), 164 B.R. 759 (9th Cir. BAP 1994),

25
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

aff’d, 60 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 1995). In Glass, prior to filing

his chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the debtor (“Mr. Glass”) had

transferred title to his residence to his son for “love and

affection.” Mr. Glass did not list the residence as an asset in

his schedules and did not disclose the transfer in his statement

of financial affairs. He further did not claim a homestead

exemption in the residence. Glass, 60 F.3d at 567. At the

§ 341(a) meeting of creditors, a creditor told the trustee about

the prepetition transfer of the residence property. Id.

Thereafter, Mr. Glass amended his schedules to list a fee

interest in the residence and claimed a homestead exemption. Id.

The trustee objected to Mr. Glass’ homestead exemption

claim, contending that since Mr. Glass did not claim any interest

in the residence in his original schedules and had voluntarily

conveyed the residence to his son for no consideration, § 522(g)

“precluded [Mr. Glass] from relying on the homestead exemption

authorized by § 522(b).” Glass, 164 B.R. at 760-61. In

addition, in the objection, the trustee stated his intent to seek

avoidance of the conveyance as a fraudulent transfer under § 548. 

Id. at 761. Before such an adversary proceeding was filed (and

even before a demand for turnover had been made), Mr. Glass’ son

reconveyed the residence to Mr. Glass, again in consideration of

“love and affection.” 

The bankruptcy court overruled the trustee’s objection

“holding [Mr.] Glass was entitled to claim the homestead

exemption under section 522(b) because the trustee did not direct

any action against the transferee son to achieve reconveyance of

the residence to the estate, and thus, the trustee did not

26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

‘recover’ any property.” Glass, 60 F.3d at 567. This Panel

reversed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the reversal, quoting

with approval this Panel’s holding that, “The purpose of § 522(g)

is to prevent a debtor from claiming an exemption in recovered

property which was transferred in a manner giving rise to the

trustee’s avoiding powers, where the transfer was voluntary or

where the transfer or property interest was concealed.” Id. at

568-69. See also Greenwood v. Clark (In re Greenwood), 593 F.

App’x 680 (Feb. 13, 2015).

In this case, the Trustee recovered the Buckingham Property

under § 542(a) through the Turnover Judgment in the Adversary

Proceeding. Mr. Elliott could have exempted the Buckingham

Property in his original schedules on the petition date if he had

disclosed it as real property in which he claimed an interest,

despite its transfer to LWI, but he did not disclose an

exemptible interest in the property. Mr. Elliott’s transfers of

the Buckingham Property were voluntary, and he concealed his

interest in the Buckingham Property in his petition and schedules

and in his testimony at the § 341(a) meeting. On this record, we

conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in sustaining the

Trustee’s objection to Mr. Elliott’s claimed homestead exemption

in the Buckingham Property under § 522(g)(1).

C. No need to rule on California exemption law

Mr. Elliott argues that the bankruptcy court erred in

failing to analyze whether Mr. Elliott’s misconduct warranted

denial of his homestead exemption claim under California state

law. Since the bankruptcy court appropriately denied Mr.

Elliott’s claimed homestead exemption under an applicable

27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bankruptcy Code provision, § 522(g)(1), it fully resolved the

Trustee’s objection and was not required to proceed further to

analyze Mr. Elliott’s homestead exemption claim under state law.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis and conclusions, we AFFIRM. 

28