Robert A. Mercer, Jr., Debtor v. Jason Monzack, Esquire

Citations: 53 F.3d 1; 33 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 841; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 9453; 1995 WL 232759Docket: 94-1346

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; April 25, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert A. Mercer, Jr. appealed a district court decision that upheld a bankruptcy court ruling disallowing most of his exemption claim for a $50,000 settlement from a personal injury lawsuit. After suffering injuries from an automobile accident in January 1990, Mercer filed a personal injury suit and subsequently a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition while the lawsuit was pending. He valued the claim at $40,000 and asserted exemptions for the settlement amount based on Bankruptcy Code sections 522(d)(10)(C) and 522(d)(11)(E) for disability and lost future earnings, respectively. The chapter 7 trustee did not object to the exemptions within the 30-day period specified by Rule 4003(b).

Mercer argued that the lack of an objection meant the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to disallow his exemption claim, citing *Taylor v. Freeland Kronz*, where the court ruled that a trustee’s failure to object barred any challenge to a claimed exemption. The trustee, however, explained that the absence of an objection was due to the belief that Mercer's claims for exemption were valid. 

The bankruptcy court determined that an objection was not necessary unless the exemption raised a "red flag," meaning it must contain clear language indicating that the debtor was claiming an amount exceeding the statutory limit. Because Mercer's claim was articulated in four valid components, the court found it did not present a "red flag" that would trigger the objection requirement, thereby allowing it to resolve the validity of the exemption without a prior objection. Ultimately, the appeal was affirmed, maintaining the bankruptcy court's ruling.

The bankruptcy court determined that it had jurisdiction to assess whether the settlement fund constituted compensation for disability or lost future earnings, ultimately concluding that it did not. As a result, the court ordered Mercer to transfer all but $7,350 to the chapter 7 trustee, a decision that was later upheld by the district court. The discussion emphasizes that Taylor does not imply a loss of jurisdiction for the bankruptcy court in determining the nature of estate property listed as exempt on Schedule B-4, which is crucial for triggering the 30-day objection period under Rule 4003(b). Section 522(l) mandates that property must be explicitly claimed as exempt by the debtor; otherwise, it remains part of the estate. The court clarified that the 30-day objection period begins only when property is claimed as exempt. The case of Taylor, while establishing that property listed as exempt can become exempt by operation of law if not timely objected to, does not extend this principle to property not explicitly listed as exempt. The bankruptcy court found that none of the disputed $42,500 qualified as compensation for a disability or lost future earnings, contrary to Mercer's argument that it should be exempted by operation of law.

Section 522(l) and Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b) require a literal interpretation, but section 522(l) does not imply that the debtor's property automatically qualifies for exemption as listed on Schedule B-4. The court affirmed that property listed on Schedule B-4 becomes exempt by operation of law if no timely objection is raised under Rule 4003(b), regardless of its eligibility under section 522(d). Mercer's claim to exempt the entire settlement fund was limited by specific statutory citations in Schedule B-4, which defined the exemptions and the corresponding property rights. The bankruptcy court, having exclusive summary jurisdiction, was tasked with determining if the disputed property rights were listed on Schedule B-4. The court clarified that parties are not required to raise objections under Rule 4003(b) to maintain their right to seek summary jurisdiction; however, they cannot wait for the objection period to lapse and then challenge an exemption that was granted by operation of law under section 522(l). The court concluded that the property in question was neither listed as exempt on Schedule B-4 nor became exempt under section 522(l). The district court's judgment was affirmed, with costs awarded to the appellee. The relevant entries in Schedule B-4 indicated various exemption claims, including those for personal injury and lost earnings, with specific statutory references and amounts. The disputed amount of $42,500 remains under appeal.