The trustee objected to the debtor’s claimed bankruptcy property exemptions under Oklahoma law. The trustee argued that Oklahoma law did not apply to the debtor's exemption claims because the debtor was not domiciled in Oklahoma during the relevant period under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A). The debtor had filed for bankruptcy on August 15, 2024, and had lived in both Oklahoma and Louisiana in the 730-day period prior to filing. In this case, the court had to determine whether Oklahoma or Louisiana bankruptcy exemptions applied to the debtor’s claims.
In In Re Stevens, No. 24-80636-PRT, 2025 WL 438625, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 273 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. Feb. 7, 2025) (opinion not yet released for publication), the court deemed the debtor’s exemptions under Oklahoma law improper and granted the trustee’s objection. First, the court noted that a debtor’s exemption claim is presumed valid, placing the initial burden on the trustee to prove the exemption claim is improper. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003. If the trustee meets the burden, the burden then shifts back to the debtor to prove the validity of her exemption. The court applied 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A), providing that the state law that applies is the state where a debtor was domiciled for 730 days before filing for bankruptcy. If a debtor was domiciled in multiple states during that period, the court then looks to where the debtor was domiciled for the 180-day period immediately preceding the 730-day period. The court found the debtor lived in Oklahoma at the time she filed for bankruptcy, but that she had also lived in Louisiana during the 730-day period prior to filing. Therefore, the court looked to where the debtor was domiciled in the 180 days preceding that period and determined she had lived in Louisiana. Thus, the court held that the Louisiana bankruptcy law controlled the debtor’s exemption claims. Under the Louisiana law, a debtor may apply exemption claims to protect property located in another state; however, the debtor asserted her claims only under Oklahoma law. Therefore, the court found these exemptions were improper, disallowed the exemptions, and granted the trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claims for property exemption.
By Sophie Bunn [email protected]
Edited By Jace Brown [email protected]
Edited By Callighan Ard [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott [email protected]