Bankruptcy Court Stakes Out Unique Position on Sec. 522(b)(3)(A) as Choice of Law Rule, Relies on Former State's Law Without Regard to Actual Residenc

A new decision from Bankruptcy Judge Craig Gargotta is likely to prompt discussion as the court held that a debtor could be prohibited from using federal exemptions based on the law of his prior residence even though that state's law only prohibited "residents" of the state from using the federal exemptions. In re Camp, No. 08-11056 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 9/25/08). In so ruling, Judge Gargotta disagreed with the opinion in In re Battle, 366 B.R. 636 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2006) from his Western District colleague Leif Clark.

The Facts

Melvin Camp moved to Texas from Florida. Under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(b)(3)(A), his choice of exemptions was governed by the law of Florida because he had not resided in Texas for the requisite 730 days. Mr. Camp was a prime candidate to use the federal exemptions. His paltry possessions added up to only $24,205, but included cash of $3,100, a lot which was not his homestead valued at $4,500 and a pickup truck worth $13,750. Under the federal exemptions, he would be able to keep all of these assets.

The Debtor's lawyer had no doubt read In re Battle, which held that Sec. 522(b)(3)(A)'s mandate to apply Florida law meant to apply it exactly as written. Since Florida law prohibited residents of Florida from using the federal exemptions and Mr. Camp was NOT a resident of Florida, he should be able to claim federal exemptions and keep his property.

The Trustee objected to the Debtor's exemptions claiming that In re Battle was incorrectly decided. The Bankruptcy Court agreed with the Trustee and denied the exemption.

When Does A Statute Not Mean What It Says? When It is a Choice of Law Provision.

The Florida statute appears clear. It states that "residents of this state shall not be entitled to the federal exemptions provided in s. 522(d) of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978." Based on this language, Judge Clark's Battle opinion held that where Florida had adopted a limitation applicable to residents of Florida and Congress had deemed that the statute apply to persons who no longer resided in Florida, that the statute should be applied exactly as written--in other words, that Texans subject to Florida exemption law were not prohibited from using the federal exemptions.

Judge Gargotta acknowledged that, "At first blush, these courts' reasoning appears sound. It relies exclusively on the language of the applicable opt-out statute." Opinion, p. 4.

However, Judge Gargotta went on to consider Congress's intent in adopting these provisions and how they should be applied.

Florida has thus expressed its judgment that its residents who file bankruptcy should be restricted to claiming Florida exemptions. Congress decided when it enacted the 1978 Bankruptcy Code to honor such decisions by the states that have made them, by expressly incorporating such "opt-out" provisions by reference in Sec. 522(b)(2).

Residency restrictions in a state's exemption laws, including residency restrictions applicable to its opt-out statute, are equivalent to choice of law provisions--they address the question of what state's laws should determine the exemptions of a debtor who has moved from one state to another. (citation omitted). However, by adopting Sec. 522(b)(2) and (3)(A), congress expressed its own judgment that, in instances where a debtor moves from one state to another within 730 days before filing bankruptcy, his exemptions should be determined by the laws (including any opt-out law) of his former domiciliary state. Thus, the issue in this case (and in Battle and similar cases) arises because of the conflict between a state law choice of law provision and the federal choice of law provision contained in Sec. 522(b)(2) and (3)(A). Such conflicts are traditionally resolved by applying the doctrine of preemption. (citations omitted).

The courts deciding Battle and similar cases, however, did not address this conflict between the applicable state opt-out statute and the federal statute, Sec. 522(b)(3)(A), or the question of preemption. Instead, those courts assumed, without discussion, that Sec. 522(b)'s incorporation of each state's substantive exemption laws also incorporated the state law choice of law provisions that each state applies to its exemption laws outside of bankruptcy (e.g., the residency restriction in its opt-out statute). In doing so, those courts have effectively written out of Sec. 522(b)(3)(A) Congress's own considered policy judgment on which state's law should apply when a debtor moves before filing bankruptcy.

Opinion, pp. 4-5.

The resourceful Judge Gargotta came up with an interesting example to make his point about how literally following a state's laws could frustrate the intent of Congress. Idaho law provides that residents of Idaho are entitled to use the Idaho exemptions and that nonresidents are entitled to use the law of the state of their residence. If this provision were applied literally, a debtor who moved from Idaho to another state would automatically be allowed to use the law of the new state despite Congress's mandate to apply Idaho law.

Judge Gargotta ultimately concluded that the proper approach was to apply the laws of the prior state "as if he had not moved for purposes of determining what property he may claim as exempt." Opinion, p. 8. Indeed, he adopted the position that in applying Sec. 522(b)(3)(A), the court must disregard the reality that the debtor actually resides in the state where he lives.

For example, if thirty days before filing bankruptcy a debtor moved from Texas to Louisiana and purchased a home, Sec. 522(b)(3)(A) requires the bankruptcy court to "disregard the element of reality" of the actual state of the debtor's residence (Louisiana), and instead engage in the fiction of considering the state of his or her former residence (Texas) to be the state where he or she currently resides. If the debtor chooses state exemptions, Texas exemption laws would apply to the debtor's home and other property located within the state--in this case, within "Louisiana qua Texas." This is not, however, the extraterritorial application of Texas's exemption laws. It is not under the authority of the State of Texas that its exemption laws are being applied to property outside Texas. Rather, it is a federal choice of law statute--Sec. 522(b)(3)(A)--that has expressly provided that the exemption laws of a particular state--Texas--are applicable to a debtor who, by definition, is no longer a domiciliary of that state and so whose property is almost certainly no longer located within that state.

Opinion, p. 11.

What Does It All Mean?
This is a difficult opinion to digest. It will likely result in the death of many trees (or perhaps the consumption of many electrons) as law professors try to sort this out. Judge Gargotta acknowledged that, "(N)o other court has yet expressly held that a state residency restriction in an opt-out statute is a choice of law provision that is preempted by Sec. 522(b)(3)(A)." Opinion, p. 7.

However, despite the density of the reasoning, there is a simple logic to the result--namely, that a debtor should neither be advantaged or disadvantaged by a move within 730 days before bankruptcy. While Sec. 522(b)(3)(A) has often been viewed as a measure designed to punish debtors who move to exemption friendly states, it can also have the reverse effect. If a debtor moves from Texas with its unlimited exemption to Maryland which has no homestead exemption, the Debtor could enjoy the benefits of the Texas exemption in Maryland.