Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/656/60/184732/
Timestamp: 2013-05-18 18:16:45
Document Index: 506826035

Matched Legal Cases: ['art:\n4', '§ 522', '§ 407', '§ 1717', '§ 601', '§ 916', '§ 522', '§ 34', '§ 34', '§ 34', '§ 34', 'art:\n9', '§ 522']

656 F.2d 60: Oliver Reginald Cheeseman and Isabelle Cheeseman, Appellants, v. Erwin B. Nachman, Appellee.in Re Oliver Reginald Cheeseman and Isabelle Cheeseman, Debtors :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.2d > Volume 656 > 656 F.2d 60 - Oliver Reginald Cheeseman and Isabelle ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
656 F.2d 60: Oliver Reginald Cheeseman and Isabelle Cheeseman, Appellants, v. Erwin B. Nachman, Appellee.in Re Oliver Reginald Cheeseman and Isabelle Cheeseman, Debtors
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 656 F.2d 60
Argued May 4, 1981.Decided July 30, 1981
1 On their "Statement of Financial Affairs for Debtor Not Engaged in Business," Mrs. Cheeseman indicated that she had been employed ten years with Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., and Mr. Cheeseman noted that he had worked four and one-half years for Yorktown Oil Refinery. Mr. Cheeseman had been temporarily unemployed prior to filing for bankruptcy
2 The Cheeseman's equity in their family home at the time they filed for bankruptcy was $4,700.00. Under section 34-4, every householder is allowed to exempt $5,000 of real or personal property. Section 34-13 emphasizes that the householder may choose a combination of realty and personalty in arriving at the $5,000 total:
3 This section provides in relevant part:
4 In Thompson, Bankruptcy Judge Bonney allowed the household exemption for both the husband and the wife. He concluded, based on the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code and the language of 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(b) and (m), that Congress intended to permit in joint cases an exemption for each debtor. The district court, relying exclusively on state law, reversed this decision
5 Other federal exemptions include, for example, Social Security payments, 42 U.S.C. § 407; injury or death compensation payments from war risk hazards, 42 U.S.C. § 1717; wages of fishermen, seamen, and apprentices, 46 U.S.C. § 601; and death and disability benefits under the Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 916. See H.R.Rep.No.595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 360 (1977), reprinted in (1978) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5787, 5963, 6316
6 This subsection provides that "(t)his section (522) shall apply separately with respect to each debtor in a joint case." 11 U.S.C. § 522(m)
7 Section 34-3.1 provides:
8 There are a few other exemptions available to Virginia residents, but several by their terms are similar to the homestead exemption in that they are available only to householders. A householder engaged in agriculture, for example, may exempt certain agricultural tools and equipment, Va.Code § 34-27 (Supp.1980), and a householder may exempt certain personal items including the family Bible, the family pets, and wedding rings. Va.Code § 34-26 (Supp.1980). Also, a disabled veteran is entitled to an extra $2,000 exemption. Va.Code § 34-4.1 (Supp.1980). Another exemption, one for rents and profits received from the homestead, is set forth in Va.Code § 34-18 (Supp.1980) and provides in relevant part:
9 Although section 34-1 defines "householder" and not "head of a family," these terms have been considered equivalent under previous law. Oppenheim v. Myers, 99 Va. 582, 39 S.E. 218 (1901)
10 References to "Congress" are actually references to the House of Representatives as section 522 essentially mirrors the House bill's provision for exemptions, which differed significantly from the Senate's provision. See note 10, infra
11 The Senate bill proposed allowing state law to govern exemptions in the same manner as did the law then in effect. See S.Rep.No.989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1978) reprinted in (1978) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5787, 5792, whereas the House bill proposed allowing the bankrupt debtor to choose between state exemptions and specifically enumerated federal exemptions. See H.R.Rep.No.595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 126-27 (1977), reprinted in (1978) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5963, 6087-88. The Senate opposed the House bill's provision for permitting the debtor to make a choice. It expressed a concern that, in a joint case, a husband could choose the federal exemption and the wife could choose the state exemptions, thus allowing the couple to retain a "very substantial" amount of property. S.Rep.No.989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1978), reprinted in (1978) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5787, 5792
12 The other exemptions provided by Virginia law, see note 7, supra, and federal laws other than 11 U.S.C. § 522(d) do not save the bankruptcy court's interpretation of section 34-1 because those exemptions apply only to very limited groups of people and are unlikely to be available to the bankrupt debtor in most cases