green
Positive treatment
Trending · 89 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
67.6 score
“when the failed to reinvest the proceeds in another texas homestead within the statutory time period, those proceeds lost their exemption, freeing the trustee to reach the proceeds as part of the bankruptcy estate.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Viegelahn v. Lopez
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
when the failed to reinvest the proceeds in another texas homestead within the statutory time period, those proceeds lost their exemption, freeing the trustee to reach the proceeds as part of the bankruptcy estate.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
in Re Leticia London
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
the debtor may have certain property exempted from the bankruptcy estate by electing to take advantage of either the federal exemption provisions in the bankruptcy code or those provided under state law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Loan Acquisitions Company v. Jerome W.H. Niswonger and Brenda C. Niswonger
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
NLAC and the Trustee claim the Niswongers disposed of the insurance proceeds by purchasing the Athens Home and Texas Properties to avoid repaying the Loan, and that the amount paid exceeds the amount that could be otherwise claimed as homestead.55 To determine whether insurance proceeds are exempt or non-exempt, courts must apply the “snapshot rule” which states that exemptions “...are determined at the time the bankruptcy petition is filed, and...do not change due to subsequent events.” In re Frost, 744 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 20…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Randolph Neil Chapman and Sheryl E. Chapman, Debtors.
In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Mathew Powell
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Zibman v. Tow, 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2001) (emphasis in original); see also Myers v. Matley, 318 U.S. 622, 628 (1943).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael P. Klein v. Jesslyn Anderson
Id. (citing Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCallister v. Wells
Put differently, “When a debtor elects to avail himself of the exemptions the state provides, he agrees to take the fat with the lean . . . .” Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Joseph Montanez
See England v. Golden (In re Golden), 789 F.2d 698, 700 (9th Cir. 1986); Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2001).5 The Fifth Circuit decision, which Stewart relies on, concluded that “it is the entire state law applicable on the filing date that is determinative.” Zibman, 268 F.3d at 301 (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Jesslyn Renee Anderson
Id. (citing Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2001)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
HULL v. ROCKWELL
(3×)
Id. at 21 (citing In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bryan Peter Fernandes
Fifth Circuit Homestead and IRA Cases The Court recognizes that the Fifth Circuit has held, in very limited cases, that exempt assets may retain their exempt status despite being held in a non-exempt form, but only for the period of time authorized by state law. 10 at 692. 11 , 744 F.3d at 385 . 6 When an exemption is claimed under state law, “it is the entire state law applicable on the filing date that is determinative.”12 In , the debtors sold their home prior to filing their chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and claimed the sale proceeds as exempt under Texas state law, which provides that…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Rockwell
Ignoring the debtors' post-petition failure to reinvest the proceeds within the six month term would, according to the Zibman court, eliminate an integral aspect of the Texas homestead exemption for proceeds - the requirement of reinvestment in a residence within six months, and would ignore the purpose of the temporal limits of the proceeds law - "[t]he object of the proceeds exemption statute was solely to allow the claimant to invest the proceeds in another homestead, not to protect the proceeds, in and of themselves." Id. at 305 (quotations and emphasis omitted). 9 *26 The partial snap-sho…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowe v. DeBerry (In Re DeBerry)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001); England, 975 F.2d at 1174-75.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hawk v. Engelhart (In Re Hawk)
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
The “[determination [of] whether an exemption from the bankruptcy estate exists is a question of law, which we review de novo.” In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gregory Hawk v. Eva Engelhart
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
“Determination whether an exemption from the bankruptcy estate exists is a question of law, which we review de novo.” In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Ortiz-Peredo
Additionally, the Fifth Circuit previously stated in In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001), the general rule that exemptions are determined on petition date and do not subsequently lose their exempt status (known as the “snapshot rule”), and that once the exemption was allowed on the petition date, the exemption could not subsequently be lost.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hawk v. Engelhart (In re Hawk)
(3×)
Whether an exemption from the bankruptcy estate exists is a question of law for the Court. 5 Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman) 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir.2001), citing In re England, 975 F.2d 1168 , 1172 (5th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Williams
In re Jacobson, 676 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir.2012) (quoting In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Jesus Bencomo
However, 5 these decisions do not address how California’s homestead 6 exemption law is to be interpreted when a bankruptcy intervenes. 7 We recognize as a given that “‘it is the entire state law 8 applicable on the filing date that is determinative’ of whether 9 an exemption applies.” Wolfe v. Jacobson, 676 F.3d at 1199 , 10 quoting Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 11 2001) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Jesus Bencomo
However, 5 these decisions do not address how California’s homestead 6 exemption law is to be interpreted when a bankruptcy intervenes. 7 We recognize as a given that “‘it is the entire state law 8 applicable on the filing date that is determinative’ of whether 9 an exemption applies.” Wolfe v. Jacobson, 676 F.3d at 1199 , 10 quoting Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 11 2001) (emphasis in original).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Romo v. Montemayor (In re Montemayor)
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
See In re Frost, 744 F.3d at 384-90 ; In re Morgan, 481 Fed.Appx. 183, 183-84 (5th Cir.2012); In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 301-05 (5th Cir.2001); In re England, 975 F.2d at 1168 ; Lowe v. DeBerry (In re DeBerry), Adv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Culp v. Stanziale (In re Culp)
In their opening brief, Appellants cite to In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir.2001), in support of the following contention: "By entering the Trustee’s motion to sell [Appellants’] home, granting the Trustee compensation for the same and denying [Appellants’] motion to convert, [the Bankruptcy Court] entered a series of'final appealable orders.” (See D.I. 26 at 4) Appellants therefore appear to argue that the Fee Order is a final, appeal-able order.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sikirica v. Yanovich (In re Yanovich)
As one court observed: “The facts of the case and the law, as they exist on the date of the filing of the petition, determine any exemptions claimed.” Ford v. Konnoff (In re Konnoff), 356 B.R. 201, 204 (9th Cir. BAP 2006) (citing Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001); In re Combs, 166 B.R. 417, 419 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1994)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rachel Brown v. Ronald Sommers
Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). 11 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Lush
Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001) (citing Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 308 , 111 S.Ct. 1833 , 114 L.Ed.2d 350 (1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Studensky v. Buttery Co. (In re Argubright)
Thus, when a debtor claims an exemption under state law, “it is the entire state law applicable on the filing date that is determinative.” Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001) (emphasis omitted). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sender v. Golden (In re Golden)
Another line of cases, however, takes the view that the “essential element of the exemption must continue in effect even during the pendency of the bankruptcy.” In re Frost, 744 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Hawk
The court stated that a debtor may rely on either federal or state exemption law; however, “[wjhen claiming an exemption under state law, it is important to remember that ‘it is the entire state law applicable on the filing date that is determinative.’ ” Id. at 386 (quoting Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001)) (emphasis in original).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Parsons
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Smith
In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001) (emphasis in original).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Cage v. Smith (In re Smith)
(3×)
In affirming the district court’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that “[w]hen claiming an exemption under state law, it is important to remember that ‘it is the entire state law applicable on the filing date that is determinative.’ ” Id. at 386 (quoting Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moser v. Bank of Tyler (In re Loggins)
Texas Property Code § 11.001(c) The Bank contends that no diminution of the estate occurred as a result of the sale nor was the interest of any unsecured creditor prejudiced by its receipt of the $2.1 million because the funds which it received “were exempt sale proceeds from exempt homestead property” which would have never been available to the estate’s creditors. 53 Of course, the generous homestead protections provided under state constitutional and statutory law to Texas citizens are well-known, and included among such protections is a temporary, six-month exemption of proceeds der…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chong Kim v. Odes Ho Kim
CODE ANN. § 41.001(c); Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 2001); Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co., 826 S.W.2d 125, 132 (Tex. 1991) (noting that “[a]fter the partition sale, [a wife’s] homestead right carries over to her portion of the proceeds of sale. [She] may seek continued homestead protection for the proceeds of the partition sale as she could for the proceeds of any other type of sale of her homestead interest. [She] has not been divested of her homestead rights.”). 90 See 11 U.S.C. § 363 (j). 24 Case: 10-10882 Document: 00512593176 Page: 25 Date F…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia v. Bassel
The Bankruptcy Court aptly addressed one issue raised by this distinction — "if the debtors have used some or all of the proceeds, the question arises as to whether the debtors must propose a plan modification that includes all proceeds or just those available on the date of the plan modification.” In re Garcia, 499 B.R. 506 , 509 n. 2 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2013) (citing In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir.2001); Hill v. Jones (In re Jones), 327 B.R. 297, 302 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. 2005); Lowe v. Yochem (In re Reed), 184 B.R. 733, 738 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1995); London, 342 S.W.3d at 774 .) This issue wa…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Viegelahn v. Frost (In Re Frost)
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Zibman, 268 F.3d at 301; see Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305 , 314 n. 6, 111 S.Ct. 1833 , 114 L.Ed.2d 350 (1991); White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310 , 311—13, 45 S.Ct. 103 , 69 L.Ed. 301 (1924) (“The [homestead] exemption arises when the declaration is filed, and not before.... [T]he point of time which is to separate the old situation from the new in the bankrupt’s affairs is the date when the petition is filed.... [T]he law discloses a purpose ‘to fix the line of cleavage’ with special regard to the conditions existing when the petition is filed[.]”); In re Williamson, 804 F.2d 1355 , 1359 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re D'Avila
Soon after a bankruptcy filing, exemptions usually are determined once and for all, having been “determined by the facts and the law as they exist on the date of filing the bankruptcy petition.” Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Perry
Whether property qualifies as exempt is “determined by the facts and law as they exist on the date of filing the bankruptcy petition.” Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001) (citing White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310, 312 , 45 S.Ct. 103 , 69 L.Ed. 301 (1924)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Studensky v. Morgan (In Re Morgan)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“An order that grants or denies an exemption is deemed a final order for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. *1270 § 158(d).” Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir.2001) (citing In re England, 975 F.2d at 1172).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wolfe v. Jacobson (In Re Jacobson)
In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
London v. London
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
XVI, § 50; Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 41.001(b). 3 .See Zibman, 268 F.3d at 302 ("The debtor may have certain property exempted from the bankruptcy estate by electing to take advantage of either the federal exemption provisions in the Bankruptcy Code or those provided under state law.”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Lantz
(3×)
The court then held that accepting the debtor’s argument and “ ‘freezing’ the exemption for the proceeds simply because it was in effect at the date the petition was filed” would “effectively read the 6-month limitation out of the statute, and transform[] an explicitly limited exemption into a permanent one.” Zibman, 268 F.3d at 304.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Fernandez
See, e.g., McGarry v. Chew (In re Chew), 496 F.3d 11, 14-15 (1st Cir.2007) (overruling an objection to a debtor's homestead exemption, because a state court had already ruled that the objection was unfounded under state law prior to the bankruptcy filing); In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001) (exemptions claimed are determined by the facts and law as they exist on the date of filing); see also White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310, 312 , 45 S.Ct. 103 , 69 L.Ed. 301 (1924) (Bankruptcy Act of 1898 made the state laws existing when the petition was filed the measure of the right to exemptions). …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Denise Hodes v. Diagnosic Experts of Texas, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In re Zibman , 268 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ID/Guerra LP v. Texas Workforce Commission
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Nielsen
White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310, 313 , 45 S.Ct. 103 , 69 L.Ed. 301 ; Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001); Ford v. Konnoff (In re Konnoff), 356 B.R. 201, 204 (9th Cir.BAP2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. Brown (In Re White)
(2×)
Smith, 342 B.R. at 806-08 ; Konnoff, 356 B.R. at 207 ; cf. Zibman v. Tow (In re Zibman), 268 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2001) (Texas law); Golden, 789 F.2d at 700 (California law); In re Earnest, 42 B.R. 395, 399 (Bankr.D.Or.1984) (Oregon law).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Palmer
“This focus on the status as of the date of filing is commonly referred to as the ‘snapshot’ approach to determining the extent of the bankruptcy estate and the scope of the exemptions.” Zibman v. Tow, 268 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir.2001) (citing White v. Stump, 266 U.S. 310, 312 , 45 S.Ct. 103 , 69 L.Ed. 301 (1924)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Presto
In re Zibman, 268 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir.2001); Hill v. Jones (In re Jones), 327 B.R. 297, 302 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peter VEECK, Doing Business as RegionalWeb, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee
v.
SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee
99-40632.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 1, 2001.
268 F.3d 298
Eric P. Weisberg, Weisberg Law Office, Denison, TX, for Yeeck., Robert J. Veal, Burr & Forman, Kenneth M. Bush, Veal & Associates, Birmingham, AL, for Southern Building Code Congress Intern. Inc., Michael Lowenberg, Patrick F. McGowan, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Dallas, TX, for American Medical Ass’n, American Nat. Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Ass’n Executives (ASAE), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), National Fire Protection Ass’n (NFPA), Texas Municipal League and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) Amici Curiae., Malla Pollack, DeKalb, IL, pro se., Karen Bryant Tripp, Houston, TX, Andrew Schlafly, New York City, for Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and Eagle Forum Educ. and Legal Defense Fund, Amici Curiae.
King, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss, Benavides, Stewart, Parker, Dennis.
Published
BY THE COURT:
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.