Schwab v. Reilly
| Schwab v. Reilly | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided June 17, 2010 | |
| Full case name | Schwab v. Reilly |
| Citations | 560 U.S. 770 (more) |
| Holding | |
| When the bankruptcy allows the debtor to exempt a dollar value corresponding to specific property from seizure by creditors, claiming the full anticipated dollar value of the property does not exempt the property from seizure if the true dollar value of the property is greater than anticipated. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Breyer |
Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. 770 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when the Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to exempt a dollar value corresponding to specific property from seizure by creditors, claiming the full anticipated dollar value of the property does not exempt the property from seizure if the true dollar value of the property is greater than anticipated. Additionally, the bankruptcy trustee representing the bankruptcy estate does not need to object to the anticipated valuation to preserve the ability to seize and auction the property, giving the claimed dollar value to the debtor.[1][2]
Background
Reilly filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy when her catering business failed. She supported her petition with Schedule B, on which debtors must list their assets, and Schedule C, on which they must list the property they wish to reclaim as exempt. Her Schedule B assets included cooking and other kitchen equipment, to which she assigned an estimated market value of $10,718. On Schedule C, she claimed two exempt interests in this "business equipment": a "tool[s] of the trade" exemption for the statutory-maximum "$1,850 in value," and $8,868 under the statutory provisions allowing miscellaneous, or "wildcard," exemptions up to $10,225 in value. The claimed exemptions' total value ($10,718) equaled Reilly's estimate of the equipment's market value. Property claimed as exempt will be excluded from the bankruptcy estate "[u]nless a party in interest" objects within a certain 30-day period, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003(b). Absent an objection, the property will be excluded from the estate even if the exemption's value exceeds what the Code permits. This sort of situation was contemplated in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, which described a situation when an objection is required.[1]
Although an appraisal revealed that the equipment's total market value could be as much as $17,200, Schwab, the bankruptcy estate's trustee, did not object to the claimed exemptions because the dollar value Reilly assigned to each fell within the statutory limits. Schwab moved the Bankruptcy Court for permission to auction the equipment so Reilly could receive the $10,718 she claimed exempt and the estate could distribute the remaining value to her creditors. Reilly countered that by equating on Schedule C the total value of her claimed exemptions in the equipment with the equipment's estimated market value, she had put Schwab and her creditors on notice that she intended to exempt the equipment's full value, even if it turned out to be more than the amounts she declared and that the Code allowed. She asserted that the estate had forfeited its claim to any portion of that value because Schwab had not objected within the Rule 4003(b) period, and that she would dismiss her petition rather than sell her equipment.[1]
The Bankruptcy Court denied Schwab's motion and Reilly's conditional motion to dismiss. The federal District Court denied Schwab relief, rejecting his argument that neither the Code nor Rule 4003(b) requires a trustee to object to a claimed exemption where the amount the debtor declares as the exemption's value is within the limits the Code prescribes. Affirming, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Reilly's Schedule C entries indicated her intent to exempt the equipment's full value. Relying on Taylor, it held that Schwab's failure to object entitled Reilly to exempt the full value of her equipment, even though that value exceeded the amounts that Reilly declared and the Code permitted.[1]
Opinion of the court
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 17, 2010.[1]
Later developments
References
External links
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.