Mary E. Morosetti

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re: 	: 	Case No. 25-20897-GLT
:
MARY E. MOROSETTI, 	: 	Chapter 7
:
Debtor. 	:
:
:
MARY E. MOROSETTI, 	:
:
Movant, 	: 	Related to Dkt. Nos. 70, 72, 74, 76, 87
:
v. 	:
:
NATIONAL FUNDING, INC. and, 	:
PAMELA J. WILSON, CHAPTER 7 	:
TRUSTEE, 	:
:
Respondents. 	:
:
:
Carol L. Hanna, Esq.
Pittsburgh, PA
Attorney for Mary E. Morosetti
John W. Burns
Kathleen M. Patrick
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Dallas, TX
Attorney for National Funding, Inc.
Pamela J. Wilson, Esq.
Pittsburgh, PA
Chapter 7 Trustee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Few areas of the law are black and white. Lien avoidance under section 522(f) of
the Bankruptcy Code1 is one of them. The burden of proof rests with the debtor to apply a simple
mathematical formula prescribed by statute. 	When the calculation is properly performed, the
1 	Unless expressly stated otherwise, all references to “Bankruptcy Code” or to specific sections shall be to the
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, 11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. All references to
“Bankruptcy Rule” shall be to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
1
FILED
CLERK
U.S. BANKRUPTCY
COURT - WDPA
2/13/26 8:28 am
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 8

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}2
outcome is clear, so motions are often uncontested and granted without issue. And just like grade-
school math class, it is imperative that the moving party show their work.
Now on her fourth try, the Debtor, Mary E. Morosetti, continues to stumble on the
merits. Indeed, National Funding, Inc. argues that the Debtor miscalculated the impairment to her
homestead exemption such that its senior-most lien on her residence is not fully avoidable. The
Court concurs, though it is difficult to discern where the Debtor went wrong since she did not
“show her work” in performing the section 522(f) calculation. 	For the reasons below, the Court
finds that National Funding’s lien is avoidable only to the extent of $84,655.68 and will grant the
motion in part.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The Debtor filed a voluntary chapter 7 petition on April 9, 2025. 	She owns
residential real property having a fair market value of $233,103 and claimed an exemption of
$31,575.2 The property is encumbered by a mortgage lien in the amount of $163,890.87, together
with the following judicial liens:3
Creditor Name 	Amount 	Date
National Funding, Inc. 	$122,292.81 	10/23/2023
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC 	$4,932.07 	4/19/2024
Enterprise Bank 	$724,211.26 	4/30/2024
Discover Bank 	$17,556.19 	9/11/2024
2 	See Schedule A/B: Property, Dkt. No. 1; Schedule C: The Property You Claim as Exempt, Dkt. No. 1.
3 	See Schedule D: Creditors Who Have Claims Secured by Property, Dkt. No. 1; Schedule E/F: Creditors Who
Have Unsecured Claims, Dkt. No. 1.
2
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 8

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}3
The Debtor filed nearly-identical motions to avoid each of the judicial liens.4 The
motions assert that the respective judicial lien impairs the Debtor’s claimed exemption in her
residence and requests that the Court avoid each lien in its entirety.5 The Debtor concludes that
because the “impairments meet or exceed the property’s value,” the judicial liens should be fully
avoided under section 522(f).6 	Still, none of the motions include or perform the mathematical
calculation required by section 522(f)(A) to determine the extent of impairment. In addition, each
motion seemingly and improperly includes the Debtor’s automobile loan in the impairment
analysis (an obligation secured solely by personal property) as well as a reference to a $7,734
personal property exemption.7 It is unclear how the Debtor calculated the alleged impairment, or,
frankly, how the Debtor thinks the formula is applied.
National Funding objected to the complete avoidance of its lien, contending that
the Debtor’s calculations improperly include the automobile loan as if it were a lien secured by the
real property.8 The creditor concedes that its lien is at least partially avoidable.
When questioned about her impairment analysis, the Debtor could not explain or
defend the math used in the motions.9 Instead, the Debtor stated that she would need to double-
check her calculations and was unaware that her analysis included an automobile loan or relied on
4 	As noted before, this is the Debtor’s fourth attempt to bring these motions. Previous versions were stricken
for filing defects in violation of the local rules as well as improper service on institutional creditors. See Text
Order, Dkt. No. 41; see also Dkt. Nos. 50-55, 69.
5 	See Dkt. Nos. 70, 72, 74, 76.
6 	Id.
7 	Id.
8 	See National Funding, Inc’s Objection to Debtor's Motion to Avoid Lien Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522((F)(2)
[sic], Dkt. No. 87.
9 	Audio Recording of September 25, 2025 Hearing at 10:43:06-10:58:44 a.m.
3
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 8

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}4
exemptions of personal property.10 The Debtor did not submit a revised impairment calculation
following National Funding’s objection, leaving the Court to reconcile the asserted exemption with
the statutory formula. 	The Court ultimately granted the motions to avoid the judicial liens of
Enterprise Bank, Portfolio Recovery Associates, and Discover Bank.11 	But given the Debtor’s
confusion about her calculations, the Court took the National Funding motion under advisement
to explain the analysis in a way that might prove useful to other practitioners in this district.
For these motions to prevail, a debtor must explicitly disclose the calculation
supporting the requested relief and thereby carry her burden of proof. Here, because the Debtor
has not shown her work and has incorporated impermissible components into the calculation, the
Debtor has not met her burden of proof nor expectation of the Court.
II. 	JURISDICTION
This Court has authority to exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a), 1334, and the Order of Reference entered by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on October 16, 1984. 	This is a core
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(k).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Section 522(f) allows a debtor to avoid certain liens that impair exemptions to
which the debtor would otherwise be entitled.12 The statute facilitates a debtor’s fresh start and
eliminates an encumbrance that would infringe on a debtor’s ability to enjoy her exempt property.
10 	Id.
11 	See Dkt. Nos. 94-96.
12 	11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). Although this Opinion is focused on the avoidance of a judicial lien, it is important
to note that section 522(f) also permits avoidance of certain nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security
interests in specified categories of personal property, including household goods, tools of the trade, and
professionally prescribed health aids for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. 522(f)(1)(A)-
(B).
4
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 8

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}5
Its purpose is not to enlarge exemptions or reach beyond the property actually encumbered.13 To
prove that a judicial lien impairs an exemption, section 522(f)(2)(A) requires a two-step process.
The movant must first add together (i) the amount of the lien, (ii) the amounts of all other liens on
the property, and (iii) the amount of the exemption the debtor could claim if there were no liens
on the property. 	Next, the movant must show the value of the debtor’s interest in the property
absent any encumbrances. An impairment exists when the sum from step one exceeds the figure
from step two.14
Avoidance under section 522(f) is not an “all-or-nothing” exercise.15 	Only the
portion of a judicial lien that interferes with the debtor’s exemption is avoidable. Any portion that
does not impair the exemption survives unaffected.16 Conversely, where the value of the property
exceeds the combined amount of all liens and the claimed exemption, the judicial lien does not
impair the exemption and remains fully intact.17
When a property is subject to multiple liens, each lien is separately analyzed,
starting with the most junior lien.18 If a junior lien is deemed avoidable, the analysis progresses to
the next lien in sequence to the extent that any equity remains.19 	The section 522(f) formula is
then applied once again, only this time, the numbers are recalculated without including the value
13 	See In re Losieniecki, 17 B.R. 136, 140 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1981).
14 	11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1).
15 	See Lindsey v. Spagnol (In re Lindsey), 313 B.R. 390, 394 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2004) (quoting Garran v. SMS
Fin. V, LLC (In re Garran), 338 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2003).
16 	See id. at 394; see also East Cambridge Savings Bank v. Silveira (ln re Silveira), 141 F.3d 34, 36-38 (1st Cir.
1998); Tedeschi v. Falvo (In re Falvo), 227 B.R. 662, 666 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 1998).
17 	See supra note 16.
18 	See In re Losieniecki, 17 B.R. 136, 139 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1981).
19 	Id.
5
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 8

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}6
of the avoided lien.20 The analysis continues for each successive lien until the debtor’s exemption
is fully protected. The sequencing ensures that avoided liens are properly preserved under section
551 and that senior liens are not extinguished beyond the impairment amount.21
Procedurally, a motion to avoid a judicial lien is brought under Bankruptcy Rule
4003(d) and is treated as a contested matter governed by Bankruptcy Rule 9014.22 	Aside from
complying with applicable service requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 7004,23 these motions
must contain four essential elements: (a) identification of the subject property; (b) a statement of
the value of the debtor’s interest in the property; (c) the amount of any exemption the debtor may
claim; and (d) the amount and priority of each lien asserted against the property. Each element
must be stated with sufficient detail to permit the section 522(f) calculation.
The Debtor bears the burden of establishing that a judicial lien impairs an
exemption under section 522(f)(2)(A).24 	This requires competent evidence of each required
element together with an accurate calculation of impairment. 	Allegations unaccompanied by
supporting data do not satisfy the debtor’s burden, and the Court will not infer an impairment
absent a showing that conforms to the statutory formula.25
20 	11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(B).
21 	11 U.S.C. § 551.
22 	See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003(d); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014.
23 	As this case demonstrates, movants often fail to properly serve lien avoidance motions. Unless an exception
applies, Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(3) requires that service upon a corporation be directed to the attention of
an officer, managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or applicable law.
Similarly, service on insured depository institutions must occur via certified mail addressed to an officer of
the institution unless otherwise authorized by Bankruptcy Rule 7004(h).
24 	11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A).
25 	See Lindsey, 313 B.R. at 393.
6
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 8

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}7
Here, it is undisputed that each of the four liens constitutes a judicial lien that is
eligible for avoidance under section 522(f).26 The Court previously granted the avoidance of the
three junior judicial liens, finding that each impaired the Debtor’s exemption. 	The focus now
shifts to the last remaining judicial lien held by National Funding. 	Applying the section
522(f)(2)(A) formula to these facts yields the following calculation:
Judicial Lien 	National Funding, Inc. 	$122,292.81
Other Encumbrances 	First National Mortgage 	$163,890.87
Claimed Exemptions 	Homestead Exemption 	$31,575.00
§522(f)(2)(A) Sum 	$317,758.68
When the value of the Debtor’s interest in the property is subtracted from the aggregate total of
$317,758.68, the Debtor’s exemption is impaired:
§522(f)(2)(A) Sum 	$317,758.68
Fair Market Value of Property 	($233,103.00)
Impairment 	$84,655.68
Because section 522(f) only permits avoidance to the extent of the impairment, the
balance of the lien remains unaffected and continues to attach to the property. 	In this case, the
amount of National Funding’s lien exceeds the impairment by $37,637.13:
National Funding Judicial Lien 	$122,292.81
Impairment 	($84,655.68)
Unavoidable Portion of the Lien 	$37,637.13 27
26 	11 U.S.C. § 101(36); 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A).
27 	The Court notes that at no point during the section 522(f)(2) calculation does it include the automobile loan
of $33,687.87 or the $7,734 in personal property exemptions that were included in the Debtor’s motions.
Absent any supporting work or intermediate steps, the Court is left to reconstruct the Debtor’s calculation on
its own, as the submission provides no indication of how the result was obtained. After performing the math,
it is clear that those two numbers have no place in the section 522(f) analysis. See Dkt. Nos. 70, 72, 74, 76.
7
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 8

{00036375 - 2/12/2026 04:31 PM}8
The calculations demonstrate that the Debtor is entitled to partial relief. Since National Funding’s
lien impairs her exemption by $84,655.68, this portion of the judicial lien will be avoided. The
remaining balance of $37,637.13 cannot be avoided under section 522(f) and shall endure.
This saga illustrates two practice points that should be self-apparent. First, counsel
must review the Code and the applicable rules before filing a motion. Missteps caused by a lack
of diligence on the front end invariably result in considerable uncompensated time to correct on
the back end. Second, to show that a lien is avoidable under section 522(f), debtors must plead
each of the required elements, apply the statutory formula, and show the math supporting the
existence of an impairment. This is particularly important in complicated scenarios such as when
a lien attaches to only one co-owner’s interest. 	It is inadequate to simply allege an impairment
without quantifying it, and it is unacceptable to pawn the task off on the Court.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Debtor’s Motion to Avoid Lien Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.A.
§522(f)(2) is granted in part and denied in part. National Funding’s judicial lien is avoided in the
amount of $84,655.68, but the remaining amount of $37,637.13 shall remain unaffected by the
motion. This opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance
with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052. The Court will issue a separate order consistent with this opinion.
ENTERED at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
____________________________________
Dated: February 13, 2026 	GREGORY L. TADDONIO
CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Case administrator to mail to:
Debtor
8
Case 25-20897-GLT Doc 106 Filed 02/13/26 Entered 02/13/26 08:43:33 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 8