Samuel L. Watkins

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references will be to Title 11 of the United States
Code. 11 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.
1
United States Bankruptcy Court
District of Massachusetts
_________________________________
)
In re: 	) 	Chapter 13
) 	Case No.07-42330-HJB
SAMUEL L. WATKINS, SR., 	)
)
Debtor 	)
_________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the Court is an objection to the amended plan of reorganization (the “Plan”)
filed by the debtor, Samuel Watkins (the “Debtor”), in this Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.
The Chapter 13 trustee (the “Trustee”) objects to the Debtor’s proposed distribution to
unsecured creditors on grounds that those creditors will not receive as much under the Plan
as they would in a hypothetical liquidation under Chapter 7. The Debtor, in turn, argues
that they will.
I. 	FACTS AND TRAVEL OF THE CASE
The Debtor filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code (the “Bankruptcy Code” or the “Code”) 1 on June 20, 2007. In his schedules filed in
conjunction with the case, the Debtor disclosed ownership interests in and encumbrances
on the following four pieces of real property located in Springfield, Massachusetts:
Case 07-42330 Doc 37 Filed 12/10/07 Entered 12/10/07 14:52:59 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 7

2 On Schedule D, “Creditors Holding Secured Claims,” the Debtor scheduled $128,873.00
owed to Citi Financial on the underlying note. Citi Financial’s proof of claim, however, shows a total
amount owed of $130,841.11. 	As the Debtor has not disputed this representation, the Court
accepts the proof of claim as reflective of the amount of the secured claim for the purpose of
resolving the issues currently pending before the Court.
2
1. Bay Street Duplex: Duplex located at 427 Bay Street (the “Bay Street Duplex”).
The Debtor owns the Bay Street Duplex. Its scheduled value
is $88,000.00, and the Debtor’s interest is encumbered by a
real estate tax lien held by the City of Springfield in the amount
of $36,353.00.
2. Bay Street Lot: Undeveloped lot located on Bay Street (the “Bay Street Lot”).
The Debtor owns the Bay Street Lot. 	Its scheduled value is
$22,235.00, and the Debtor’s interest is encumbered by a real
estate tax lien held by the City of Springfield in the amount of
$2,918.67.
3. Ravenwood Property: Single family home located at 110 Ravenwood Street (the
“Ravenwood Property”).
The Debtor and his non-debtor spouse (the “Spouse”) own the
Ravenwood Property as tenants by the entirety. Its scheduled
value is $176,000.00, and their interest is encumbered by a
real estate tax lien held by the City of Springfield in the amount
of $49,372.00.
4. Fenwick Property: Two family home located at 3 Fenwick Street (the “Fenwick
Property”).
The Debtor and the Spouse own the Fenwick Property as
tenants by the entirety. 	Its scheduled value is $206,000.00,
and their interest is encumbered by a mortgage in favor of Citi
Financial Mortgage (“Citi Financial”) to secure a promissory
note with an outstanding balance of $130,841.11. 2
In addition to the liens described above, all of the properties are encumbered by a
judicial lien (the “Judicial Lien”) in favor of Pacific Northwest Capital, recorded in the registry
Case 07-42330 Doc 37 Filed 12/10/07 Entered 12/10/07 14:52:59 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 7

3 “Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code affords an individual debtor the opportunity to elect
exemptions available under federal bankruptcy law or under nonbankruptcy federal, state and local
law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b).” In re Walsh, 359 B.R. 389, 392 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007). The Debtor has
elected to claim his exemptions under nonbankruptcy law; namely, the exemption provided for in
the Massachusetts Homestead Statute. See M.G.L. ch. 188, § 1. 	In Massachusetts, the
Homestead Statute allows individuals, upon the proper execution and recording of a “Declaration
of Homestead” in the registry of deeds, see M.G.L. ch. 188, § 2, to claim up to $500,000.00 of the
equity in their home as exempt. M.G.L. ch. 188, § 1.
3
of deeds on November 24, 1997. The Debtor has scheduled the Judicial Lien as securing
a judgment against the interests of the Debtor and the Spouse in the original amount of
$146,000.00. However, it is apparently conceded by both the Debtor and the Trustee that,
with the accrual of interest at a rate of twelve percent, the actual amount secured by the
lien now exceeds $450,000.00.
Although the Debtor and the Spouse remain legally married, they have lived
separately for many years – the Ravenwood Property serves as the Spouse’s primary
residence, while the Fenwick Property serves as the Debtor’s primary residence. 	The
Debtor, on Schedule C, claims both properties as exempt. Relying on the Massachusetts
General Laws ch. 188, § 1 (the “Homestead Statute” or “Massachusetts Homestead
Statute”), he claims an exemption of $500,000.00 in the Ravenwood Property pursuant to
a Declaration of Homestead filed by the Spouse, and he claims a separate exemption in
the amount of $500,000.00 in the Fenwick Property pursuant to a Declaration of
Homestead filed by the Debtor. 3
The Trustee has filed an objection (the “Objection”) to the Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan.
The Plan provides for a ten percent distribution to unsecured creditors, whose claims total
$5,694.66. 	In her Objection, the Trustee disputes the validity of the Debtor’s claimed
exemptions in both the Ravenwood and Fenwick Properties and argues that the Plan must,
Case 07-42330 Doc 37 Filed 12/10/07 Entered 12/10/07 14:52:59 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 7

4
accordingly, provide a 100 percent distribution to unsecured creditors. After a hearing on
the matter, this Court took the Objection under advisement.
II. 	POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Trustee bases her objection on the Debtor’s attempt to claim an exemption
pursuant to the Massachusetts Homestead Statute in two different properties . According
to the Trustee’s reading of the statute, because the Debtor and the Spouse remain married,
they may claim only one valid homestead. 	Thus, for the purposes of § 1325(a)(4), the
equity in the Debtor’s interest in at least one of the properties must be accounted for in
determining whether the unsecured creditors will receive as much under the Debtor’s Plan
as they would if the property were liquidated in a Chapter 7 case. The non-exempt equity
in either property, argues the Trustee, would be sufficient to provide a 100 percent
distribution to unsecured creditors. Thus, the Plan cannot be confirmed.
The Debtor disagrees with the Trustee’s reading of the Massachusetts Homestead
Statute. He argues that the unique circumstances of the case – i.e., the fact that Debtor
and the Spouse, although legally married, operate separate households – must be taken
into account in determining the validity of the claimed exemptions. According to the Debtor,
a liberal interpretation of the Homestead Statute, as required under Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court jurisprudence, would not prohibit the Debtor and the Spouse from
both claiming valid homesteads in separate primary residences. Since the equity in both
the Ravenwood and Fenwick Properties are protected by the exemptions, the Debtor
contends that, in a Chapter 7 context, unsecured creditors would not receive a distribution
from any liquidation of the properties. 	Accordingly, confirmation of the Plan is not
Case 07-42330 Doc 37 Filed 12/10/07 Entered 12/10/07 14:52:59 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 7

4 As the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon has explained, it is necessary, in some
cases, to undertake such a detailed examination of a Chapter 13 debtor’s claimed exemptions:
In order to determine whether [the requirement of § 1325(a)(4)] is met it is
necessary to determine, hypothetically, what the dividend to creditors would be if the
debtor’s estate were liquidated in a Chapter 7 case. 	To make this hypothetical
calculation it is not only necessary to determine the value of the property of the
estate but what portion of the estate would be exempt. It would only be the value
of the property, less the exemptions, which would be available to creditors. The
debtor’s claim of exemptions is a necessary element in making this determination.
5
precluded under § 1325(a)(4).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Although the instant dispute bears the markings of a particularly nasty law-school
examination question, the resolution of the present controversy is actually relatively
straightforward.
Section 1325(a) of the Code requires confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan of
reorganization when nine enumerated conditions are met. 	11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1)-(9).
Section 1325(a)(4), the so-called “best interest test,”requires the Court to “determine that
unsecured creditors are to receive in the Chapter 13 case at least what they would receive
in a Chapter 7 case.” Walsh, 359 B.R. at 393. Subsection (a)(4) requires that:
the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed
under the plan on account of each allowed unsecured claim is not less than
the amount that would be paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor were
liquidated under chapter 7 of this title on such date . . . .
11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4). The Trustee asks the Court to examine the validity of the Debtor’s
exemptions in the Ravenwood and Fenwick Properties to ascertain whether non-exempt
equity would be available for distribution to unsecured creditors, assuming a hypothetical
chapter 7 liquidation. 4
Case 07-42330 Doc 37 Filed 12/10/07 Entered 12/10/07 14:52:59 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 7

In re Walker, 153 B.R. 565, 569 n.2 (Bankr. D. Or. 1993).
5 Section 522(f) provides, in relevant part:
(1) . . . [T]he debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in
property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would
have been entitled . . . if such lien is –
(A) a judicial lien . . . .
11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(emphasis added).
6
Such an analysis is not only daunting but, quite frankly, unnecessary. Even if this
Court were to find that neither the claimed exemption in the Ravenwood Property nor the
claimed exemption in the Fenwick Property was valid, there still would be no equity
remaining for distribution to the unsecured creditors in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation.
As the Trustee and the Debtor acknowledge, the properties are both encumbered by a
Judicial Lien that exceeds $450,000.00. Therefore, there are only two alternatives. If each
property is exempt, the Debtor may employ § 522(f)(1) to realize upon his equity, 5 but there
will be no dividend for unsecured creditors. Conversely, if either or both of the exemptions
are invalid, there will be no methodology available to avoid the Judicial Lien – thereby
ensuring that there will be no equity available for unsecured creditors.
The amount of equity remaining after payment of the mortgage debt for the Fenwick
Property and the real estate tax liens would total only $201,786.89 – far less than the
amount of the Judicial Lien. 	In fact, even factoring in the liquidation of the Bay Street
Property and the Bay Street Lot, the total equity available from all four properties would
amount to only $272,750.22. Thus, even if the claimed exemptions were unavailable to
protect equity in the properties, there still would be no non-exempt equity available for
distribution to unsecured creditors from the liquidation of the Debtor’s properties in a
Case 07-42330 Doc 37 Filed 12/10/07 Entered 12/10/07 14:52:59 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 7

7
Chapter 7 proceeding. Accordingly, the Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s exemptions is
moot and the Objection to the Debtor’s Plan under § 1325(a)(4) must be overruled. Accord
Walsh, 359 B.R. at 395 n.6 (where no equity would be available for distribution in a
hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation even assuming the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection to the
debtor’s exemption is sustained, the objection to exemption is moot).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Because the liquidation of the Debtor’s estate in a hypothetical chapter 7 case would
yield no funds for distribution to unsecured creditors, regardless of the validity of the
Debtor’s claimed exemptions, the Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s claimed exemptions
is MOOT and the Objection to the Plan under § 1325(a)(4) must be OVERRULED. 	An
order in conformity with this memorandum shall issue forthwith.
By the Court,
DATED: December 10, 2007 	Henry J. Boroff
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-42330 Doc 37 Filed 12/10/07 Entered 12/10/07 14:52:59 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 7