Antoinette Sabater Brainard

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
In re: 	)
)
ANTOINETTE SABATER BRAINARD, 	) 	Chapter 7
) 	Case No. 22-30656
Debtor. 	)
_________________________________________ )
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF
UNCLAIMED FUNDS
THIS MATTER is before the court on the Motion for Disbursement of
Unclaimed Funds (the “Motion”) filed by John and Sharon Hinds (the “Hinds”) on
April 21, 2026 (Dkt. 347). The Motion seeks disbursement of $30,000.00 from funds
held in the court’s registry that were deposited on behalf of the pro se Debtor. The
Hinds contend that the funds lost their exempt status upon deposit into the court’s
registry and are therefore subject to levy to satisfy the Hinds’ nondischargeable
judgment against the Debtor. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes
that the Debtor is the person entitled to receive the funds under 28 U.S.C. § 2042
and, therefore, denies the Motion.
_____________________________
Laura T. Beyer
United States Bankruptcy Judge
FILED & JUDGMENT ENTERED
Christine F. Ramsey
Western District of North Carolina
July 2 2026
Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 10

2
BACKGROUND
The Debtor commenced this bankruptcy case by filing a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 27, 2022. In Schedule
C, the Debtor claimed a total exemption of $35,000.00 in her residence located at
420 Zander Woods Court, Mount Holly, North Carolina (the “Property”) pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(1) and (a)(2) (Dkt. 1). On November 6, 2024, the court
entered an order converting the case to a case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code (Dkt. 120). A. Cotton Wright was appointed as Chapter 7 Trustee (the
“Trustee”) to administer the bankruptcy estate.
Following multiple unsuccessful efforts by the Trustee to gain access to the
Property so that it could be marketed and sold, the court entered an order on
August 14, 2025 authorizing the United States Marshals Service to remove the
Debtor from the Property (Dkt. 300). The Marshals Service removed the Debtor on
August 29, 2025, and the Trustee thereafter took possession of the Property. See
Dkt. 316. On January 21, 2026, the court entered an order authorizing the Trustee
to sell the Property for $300,000.00, and the sale closed on February 5, 2026 (Dkts.
330, 338). The Trustee reserved $35,000.00 from the proceeds of the sale of the
Property for payment of the Debtor’s claimed exemptions under N.C. Gen. Stat. §
1C-1601(a)(1) and (a)(2) (the “Exempt Funds”) (Dkts. 330, 340).
Although she no longer resided at the Property, the Debtor did not file a
change of address with the court despite her requirement to do so pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4002(a)(5). The Trustee was therefore unable
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 10

3
to distribute the Exempt Funds to the Debtor without a current mailing address.
See Dkts. 337, 340. Accordingly, the Trustee sought relief from the court, and the
court entered an order on April 9, 2026 directing the Debtor to file a change of
address with the court within ten days, authorizing the Trustee to mail a check for
the Exempt Funds to the Debtor’s new address, and authorizing the Trustee to
deposit the Exempt Funds into the court’s registry pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 347(a) if
the Debtor failed to comply (Dkt. 344) (the “Exempt Funds Order”). The Exempt
Funds Order expressly identified the Exempt Funds as belonging to the Debtor and
stated that the “Debtor needs only to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 4002 in order
for the Trustee to issue a check to her for the Exempt Funds.” Id. The Debtor did
not file a change of address within the time provided by the Exempt Funds Order,
and the Exempt Funds were subsequently deposited in the court’s registry (Dkts.
346, 348).
In the Motion, the Hinds request payment of $30,000.00 of the Exempt Funds
deposited 	into 	the 	court’s 	registry. 	The 	Hinds 	assert 	that 	they 	hold 	a 	valid,
unsatisfied, 	nondischargeable 	judgment 	against 	the 	Debtor 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$285,153.08 plus interest, pursuant to a default judgment which was entered
against the Debtor by this court on April 24, 2025. See Adv. Proc. No. 25-3003, Dkt.
20. The Hinds contend that, once deposited into the court’s registry, the Exempt
Funds ceased to be exempt under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(1) because the plain
language of the statute does not exempt proceeds from the sale of a debtor’s
residence. Based on that position, the Hinds argue that they are entitled to levy
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 10

4
upon 	the 	Exempt 	Funds 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2042 	to 	satisfy 	their
nondischargeable judgment. Although the Trustee deposited $35,000.00 into the
registry, the Hinds seek only $30,000.00, acknowledging that the Debtor may be
entitled to claim up to $5,000.00 of the funds as exempt under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-
1601(a)(2).
Although the Debtor did not file a response to the Motion, she filed a “Motion
to Claim Homestead Exemption Funds from the Registry Fund” on April 24, 2026,
providing her updated address and requesting that the Exempt Funds be released
to her (Dkt. 349).1 The Hinds subsequently filed a response to the Debtor’s motion,
asserting the same arguments raised in support of their Motion (Dkt. 350). On April
28, 2026, the Debtor filed a Notice of Change of Address reflecting her current
address (Dkt. 355).
On May 18, 2026, the Hinds filed a supplement to their Motion, representing
that they and the Debtor had reached a settlement regarding the Exempt Funds
(Dkt. 360). According to the supplement, the settlement provided that the Debtor
and the Hinds would each receive $17,500.00 of the Exempt Funds. A settlement
agreement 	purportedly 	bearing 	the 	Debtor’s 	signature 	is 	attached 	to 	the
supplement.
The court conducted a hearing on the Motion on May 20, 2026. An attorney
representing the Hinds, the Trustee, and the Bankruptcy Administrator appeared
1 The Debtor’s motion was heard contemporaneously with the Motion on May 20,
2026. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the Debtor’s motion and
entered an order on May 21, 2026 directing that the Exempt Funds be disbursed to
the Debtor from the court’s registry (Dkt. 362).
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 10

5
at the hearing. The Debtor did not appear. The Hinds’ attorney represented that the
parties had engaged in settlement discussions regarding the Exempt Funds and
asserted that a binding settlement agreement had been reached with the Debtor.
Counsel for the Hinds represented that Mr. Hinds discussed settlement with the
Debtor’s former spouse by telephone. Thereafter, the Debtor communicated directly
with counsel for the Hinds by email regarding the settlement. Counsel drafted a
settlement agreement and requested that the Debtor have her signature notarized.
According to the attorney for the Hinds, the Debtor advised him she was unable to
do so because she lacked any form of identification, but she nevertheless emailed
him a signed signature page. The Hinds requested that the court, acting in its
capacity 	as 	a 	handwriting 	expert, 	compare 	the 	signature 	on 	the 	settlement
agreement to the Debtor’s previously authenticated signature to determine the
authenticity of the signature and, upon finding the signature authentic, approve the
settlement and authorize the proposed disbursement of the Exempt Funds. The
Trustee did not take a position on the approval of the settlement and stated that
her primary concern was ensuring that any distribution would be properly reflected
in the amount of the Hinds’ claim so that administration of the case could be
completed.
The court declined to approve the purported settlement, noting that no
motion seeking approval of the settlement was pending before the court. The court
further expressed concern about approving an agreement in the Debtor’s absence,
particularly in light of the Hinds’ attorney’s representation that much of the
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 10

6
settlement-related communication occurred through the Debtor’s former spouse,
whom the Debtor had previously accused of forgery. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 106, Oct. 24,
2024 Hr’g Tr. at 5:21–25, 6:1–2. The court therefore proceeded to consider the
Motion.
Counsel for the Hinds argued that, pursuant to the plain language of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(1), the Exempt Funds lost their exempt status when the
Property was sold and the proceeds were converted to cash. At the latest, he argued
the Exempt Funds became nonexempt when they were deposited into the Trustee’s
bank account, at which point he contended they were subject to levy. The Hinds’
attorney asserted that, as holders of a valid nondischargeable judgment, the Hinds
were entitled to reach the Exempt Funds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2042, noting that
there is case precedent that indicates the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) is
permitted to levy on nonexempt funds in the court’s registry, although he cited no
authority for the proposition in their pleadings or at the hearing on the Motion. The
Trustee agreed that conversion of the residence to cash did not necessarily preserve
the exemption indefinitely but emphasized that the Exempt Funds were deposited
into the court’s registry only because the Debtor had failed to provide an address
where the Trustee could send the Exempt Funds. The Bankruptcy Administrator
stated that the Exempt Funds retained their exempt character pending the court’s
approval of the Trustee’s final report, and that the deposit of the Exempt Funds into
the court’s registry pursuant to the Exempt Funds Order did not alter their exempt
status.
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 10

7
DISCUSSION
Section 347(a) of the Bankruptcy Code governs the disposition of unclaimed
funds and directs that such funds be paid into the court’s registry pursuant to
Chapter 129 of Title 28. 11 U.S.C. § 347(a). Unclaimed funds deposited into the
court’s registry pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 347(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2041 are held in
trust pending distribution to the person entitled to receive them. In re Parker, 400
B.R. 55, 59 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009). Such funds may thereafter be withdrawn only
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2042, which authorizes the court to disburse such funds to
the entitled claimant upon “full proof of the right thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2042.
A party seeking release of unclaimed funds bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence a present entitlement to the funds sought. Parker,
400 B.R. at 59; In re Acker, 275 B.R. 143, 144 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2002). In determining
entitlement to unclaimed funds, bankruptcy courts generally look to the party on
whose account the trustee made the distribution. Typically, that party is the
creditor to whom the distribution was originally payable and who, upon a showing
of entitlement, is treated as the “rightful owner” of the funds. In re Rush Hampton
Indus., Inc., 379 B.R. 192, 194 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007); In re CF Gomma USA, Inc.,
No. 3:06-bk-1309-PMG, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 5778, at *7–9 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Dec.
14, 2009); In re Applications for Unclaimed Funds, 341 B.R. 65, 69 (Bankr. N.D. Ga.
2005).
The record reflects that the Debtor is the person entitled to receive the
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 10

8
Exempt Funds. The court’s prior orders clearly identified the Exempt Funds as
being designated for the Debtor. See Dkts. 330, 344. The Hinds neither objected to
the sale motion reserving the Exempt Funds for the Debtor nor objected to the
Trustee’s subsequent request to distribute those funds to the Debtor upon her filing
of a change of address with the court or, if she failed to do so, to deposit those funds
into the court’s registry. The Trustee’s inability to remit the funds directly to the
Debtor was solely due to the Debtor’s failure, at that time, to provide an updated
mailing address. The Exempt Funds Order did not alter the Debtor’s entitlement to
the funds, create any interest in favor of another party, or otherwise change the
purpose for which the funds were being held. Rather, the Trustee’s deposit of the
Exempt Funds into the registry served as a mechanism to safeguard the Exempt
Funds pending distribution to the Debtor. Accordingly, the Exempt Funds should be
remitted to the Debtor at her updated address, which is consistent with “the
purpose for which [they were] deposited.” CF Gomma, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 5778, at
*11 (quoting United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1062 (9th Cir.
1991)).
The court is not persuaded by the Hinds’ argument that the Exempt Funds
lost any exempt status they may have possessed and became subject to levy by
creditors once deposited into the court’s registry. Generally, funds held in the court
registry are held in custodia legis, which “prohibits any attachment of property in a
court’s registry that would prevent the court from allocating the property in accord
with the purpose for which it was deposited.” Id. The Hinds cited no authority
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 10

9
establishing that funds deposited into the court’s registry pursuant to court order
become subject to levy merely by virtue of their placement in the registry. The court
has identified limited precedent involving attempts by the IRS to levy on unclaimed
funds deposited on behalf of debtors. See In re Foster, No. 23-10003, 2024 Bankr.
LEXIS 2683, at *7–8 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. Nov. 1, 2024) (permitting IRS to levy on
debtor’s 	unclaimed 	funds 	while 	acknowledging 	that 	this 	area 	of 	law 	remains
unsettled); In re Brown, 280 B.R. 231, 234 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2002); but see In re
Acosta, No. 14-5704 EAG, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2008, at *8–9 (Bankr. D.P.R. July 3,
2018) (denying IRS’s attempt to levy on debtor’s unclaimed funds to prevent a “race
to the clerk’s office” among creditors). Those cases are distinguishable, as they arise
in the Chapter 13 context and implicate the treatment of undistributed plan
payments under § 1326(a)(2) following dismissal of a case in which the IRS held a
prepetition, perfected tax lien. Moreover, those cases do not involve funds claimed
as exempt by a debtor. Accordingly, the court does not find those authorities
persuasive on the issue presented here.
The court is also not persuaded that the mere deposit of the funds into the
registry altered their exempt status. Although North Carolina’s exemption statutes
do not expressly address the treatment of proceeds in the manner that some states’
exemption schemes do, North Carolina courts have long recognized that exemption
statutes should be liberally construed in favor of debtors. See, e.g, In re Turnage,
644 B.R. 656, 662 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2022). Consistent with that principle, and
absent authority holding otherwise, the court declines to conclude that the Exempt
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 10

10
Funds lose their exempt character solely by virtue of being deposited into the court’s
registry pursuant to court order.
The court acknowledges that the exempt status of the Exempt Funds is not
indefinite. However, the court need not determine the precise point at which the
exempt status is lost. The narrow issue before the court is whether the deposit of
the Exempt Funds into the court registry changed their status or divested the
Debtor of her entitlement to receive them. The court concludes that it does not but
recognizes that the Hinds hold a nondischargeable claim against the Debtor. Once
the Exempt Funds are released to the Debtor, the parties remain free to negotiate
regarding the Exempt Funds, and, upon the conclusion of this bankruptcy case, the
Hinds may pursue any rights and remedies available to them under applicable law.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the Debtor is the person
entitled to receive the Exempt Funds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2042. Accordingly, the
court DENIES the Motion.
SO ORDERED.
This Order has been signed 	United States Bankruptcy Court
electronically. The Judge’s
signature and Court’s seal
appear at the top of the Order.
Case 22-30656 Doc 371 Filed 07/02/26 Entered 07/02/26 18:10:45 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 10