IN MATTER OF PRUITT (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 2006)


IN THE MATTER OF: LARRY EUGENE PRUITT, FAY VIRGINIA PRUITT, Debtors.

Case No. 05-41239.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division, Lafayette.
June 5, 2006

DECISION ON MOTION TO AVOID LIENS
ROBERT GRANT, Bankruptcy Judge

This matter is before the court on debtors’ motions, filed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1), to avoid judicial liens which allegedly impair their exemption in residential real estate. The liens in question are held by Credit Bureau Asset Servicing and Security and R E Industries, Inc. in the following amounts: $25,000 and $2,12.36. Notice of the motions has been given to the lienholders and there have been no objections thereto. Despite the fact that there have been no objections, the court concludes that the debtors’ motions may only be granted in part.

Not every judicial lien upon exempt property may be avoided. Lien avoidance pursuant to § 522(f)(1) is available only where the judicial lien impairs a claimed exemption. The concept of impairment was reduced to a mathematical formula by the amendments to § 522(f) promulgated by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A); In re Thomsen,181 B.R. 1013, 1015 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1995). When the amount due on account of the lien sought to be avoided, all other liens on the property, and the amount of the debtor’s exemption, “exceeds the value that the debtor’s interest in the property would have in the absence of any liens,” the debtor’s exemption is impaired. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A)(i) thru (iii).

The analysis of lien avoidance under § 522(f)(1) can be viewed as an attempt to replicate the

Page 2

results of a hypothetical sale of the property in question. The value of the property would represent the proceeds from such sale, and is distributed to the various lienholders and the debtor according to the priority of their respective interests. Since consensual liens are generally superior to judicial liens, they would be paid first. Since the entire purpose of an exemption is to protect property from creditors, a debtor’s exemption is superior to the judicial liens. Accordingly, the claimed exemption is fully satisfied before any distribution to judicial lienholders. To the extent funds remain, judicial lienholders receive the remaining proceeds, in accordance with the relative priority of their liens. Once the sale proceeds are exhausted, any lienholder that remains unpaid receives nothing.

Section 522(f)(1) attempts to accomplish essentially the same type of result; but, instead of actually distributing money, the court fixes the amount of the lien holder’s interest based upon what, if anything, it would have received from the hypothetical sale. Consequently, the steps followed in determining whether to avoid a judicial lien are:

1. Determine the value of the property subject to the judicial lien;
2. Deduct the amount of all liens not to be avoided from (1);
3. Deduct the debtor’s allowable exemptions from (2);
4. Avoidance of all judicial liens results unless (3) is a positive figure; and
5. If (3) does result in a positive figure, to that extent, the liens cannot be avoided.

In re Silveira, 141 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1998). See also, In reFinn, 211 B.R. 780 (1st Cir. BAP 1997); In re Lindsey,313 B.R. 390, 394-95 (Bankr. W.D. Penn. 2004).

According to the debtors’ motions, the fair market value of the property is $45,000. The amount due on account of all non-avoidable liens (mortgage) is placed at $23,500. Subtracting this

Page 3

amount from the property’s stated value leaves $21,500. This is the amount of money that would be available for distribution on account of both debtors’ claimed exemption and the judicial liens. On their Schedule C, debtors claimed an exemption of $5,000. Subtracting that amount from[1] $21,500 leaves $16,500. This is the amount of money that would be available for distribution on account of the judicial liens after the debtor’s claimed exemption had been fully satisfied. Consequently, the debtor’s motion may only be granted in part. The liens should be avoided, according to their relative priorities, only to the extent they secure indebtedness exceeding $16,500. An appropriate order will be entered.

[1] The motions allege that the liens impair the debtors’ exemption “insofar as the claimed exemption value is $21,500.00.” Since this statement is somewhat equivocal about what the claimed exemption really is, the court reviewed debtors’ Schedule C to see what exemption debtors actually claimed in the property. Upon doing so, the court learned that the exemption there is only $5,000. The court does not believe that the debtors should be able to claim one exemption on Schedule C and then assert a different, higher one in their motion to avoid liens. Accordingly, its analysis is based upon the exemption the debtors actually claimed, not the higher one they seem to refer to in the motions.