William J. Healey

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
WILLIAM J. HEALEY,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 05-01343
(Chapter 7)
OPINION RE MARC R. LABGOLD'S
OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S CLAIMED EXEMPTIONS
The debtor has claimed as exempt
• $200 in cash; $700 in a bank account; and $2,475 in
a security deposit;
• $2,500 for furniture, computer equipment; and $1,000
for clothes;
• $500 for a bicycle;
• $28,000 for a Fidelity retirement account and $8,500
for a Mayer Brown retirement account (both claimed
to be exempt under § 522(d)(10)(E)).
Marc R. Labgold has objected to the exemptions on the grounds
that:
• the furniture, computer equipment, and clothes are
The opinion below is hereby signed. Dated: December
3, 2005.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-01343 Doc 25 Filed 12/05/05 Entered 12/05/05 15:18:23 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
undervalued;
• the debtor should have more than the $200 in cash
and the $700 bank account; and
• the exemption of the retirement accounts is improper
“to the extent that they do not qualify for
exemption under section 522(d)”.
The debtor has failed to respond to the objection.
The objections regarding undervaluing or understating
assets (the furniture, computer equipment, clothes, cash, and
bank account) are readily disposed of. The debtor only claims
the specified dollar amounts of exemptions with respect to
each asset, and his exemptions will be limited to those dollar
amounts. See Hyman v. Plotkin (In re Hyman), 967 F.2d 1316
(9th Cir. 1992) (exemption was limited to amount stated by
debtor as exempt value rather than full value of homestead);
Addison v. Reavis, 158 B.R. 53, 59 (E.D. Va. 1993) (exemptions
of assets were limited to value debtors listed), aff'd without
published op. sub nom. Ainslie v. Grablowsky, 32 F.3d 562 (4th
Cir. 1994). Accord, In re DeSoto, 181 B.R. 704 (Bankr. D.
Conn. 1995); Pope v. Clark (In re Clark), 274 B.R. 127 (Bankr.
W.D. Pa. 2002). Cf. Stoebner v. Wick (In re Wick), 276 F.3d
412 (8th Cir. 2002) (debtor limited to specified dollar amount
claimed exempt for asset listed with unknown value). But see
Case 05-01343 Doc 25 Filed 12/05/05 Entered 12/05/05 15:18:23 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
Allen v. Green (In re Green), 31 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir. 1994)
(trustee conceded that he understood the $1.00 value listed
for lawsuit represented a contingent value, and court of
appeals held that claimed exemption in amount of $1.00 should
be viewed as claim to exempt lawsuit in its entirety). If the
value of an asset is greater than the dollar amount claimed as
exempt, then the debtor must amend his exemptions if he is to
have the benefit of exempting a larger dollar amount with
respect to such asset. Pursuant to Rule 4003(b), Labgold can
object to any amended exemption to the extent it is improper.
The objection regarding the retirement accounts requests
that the exemptions be disallowed “to the extent [the
accounts] do not qualify for exemption under Section 522(d).”
The debtor claimed these retirement accounts as exempt under
11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E) which allows such accounts to be
exempted only “to the extent reasonably necessary for the
support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor.” The
debtor, a lawyer with a large law firm, listed no dependents
on his Schedule I and has listed an income (well in excess of
the income of the more typical individual debtor in this
court) that exceeds his monthly expenses on Schedule J,
resulting in a positive net income. Accordingly, these
Case 05-01343 Doc 25 Filed 12/05/05 Entered 12/05/05 15:18:23 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\JUDGTEMP\Healey Opinon re Objection to Exemptions.wpd
retirement accounts are not reasonably necessary for the
debtor's support. The court will thus sustain the objection
to these claims of exemption.
As the objection seems to recognize, the retirement
accounts may be exemptible to some extent under § 522(d) (by
reason of alternative provisions that might be invoked to
claim an exemption). However, the court must deal with the
exemptions as presently claimed only on the basis of §
522(d)(10)(E), and the court will not speculate how the debtor
might elect to amend the exemptions. The disallowance of the
claimed exemptions under § 522(d)(10)(E) will be without
prejudice to the debtor's amending his Schedule C to attempt
to exempt such accounts to the extent authorized by any other
provision.
An order follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Stephen W. Robinson; Cathryn Le Regulski;
Kevin R. McCarthy; Office of the U.S. Trustee.
Case 05-01343 Doc 25 Filed 12/05/05 Entered 12/05/05 15:18:23 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4