Schwab v. Reilly

Bankruptcy, Chapter 7: exemptions: because Reilly gave “the value of her claimed exemptions” on Schedule C dollar amounts within the range the Code allows for what it defines as the “property claimed as exempt,” Schwab (the bankruptcy estate’s trustee) was not required to object to the exemptions in order to preserve the estate’s right to retain any value in the equipment beyond the value of the exempt interest; (…) It simply confines that estimate to its proper role: aiding the trustee in administering the estate by helping him identify assets that may have value beyond the amount the debtor claims as exempt, or whose full value may not be available for exemption; (…) Taylor establishes and applies the straightforward proposition that an interested party must object to a claimed exemption if the amount the debtor lists as the “value claimed exempt” is not within statutory limits; the decision reached here encourages a debtor wishing to exempt an asset’s full market value or the asset itself to declare the value of the claimed exemption in a way that makes its scope clear. Such declarations will encourage the trustee to object promptly and preserve for the estate any value in the asset beyond relevant statutory limits. If the trustee fails to object, or his objection is overruled, the debtor will be entitled to exclude the asset’s full value. If the objection is sustained, the debtor will be required either to forfeit the portion of the exemption exceeding the statutory allowance or to revise other exemptions or arrangements with creditors to permit the exemption. See Rule 1009(a). Either result will facilitate the expeditious and final disposition of assets, and thus enable the debtor and creditors to achieve a fresh start free of Reilly’s finality and clouded-title concerns (U.S. S. Ct., 17.06.10, Schwab v. Reilly, J. Thomas).

Faillite : le système des exemptions prévues par le Chapitre 7.