In Re Zimmel (1995)

See In re Larson, 260 B.R. 174, 187-88 (Bankr.D.Colo.2001) (concluding that debtors were engaged in agriculture as principal occupation for purposes of Colorado exemption despite having taken full-time trucking jobs two years prior to bankruptcy filing); In re Zimmel, 185 B.R. 786, 789 (Bankr.D.Minn.1995) (noting that whether debtor qualifies for Minnesota exemption "depends on the debtor's historical involvement with farming and present intentions"). [6] B.

But, even assuming that the interpretation of Subparagraph (A) is the correct one and the subparagraph is satisfied, neither of the alternative requisites of Subparagraph (B) is satisfied by Minnesota law. 185 B.R. at 791 (emphasis added).

The testimony was undisputed that ever since moving out to the homestead near Vergas, Minnesota, that they had never made any money from their “farm.” A corollary analysis with respect to Minn. Stat. § 550.37 , Subd. 5, which provides an exemption for farm machines, is instructive: “Whether a debtor qualifies for the exemption provided by Minn.Stat. 550.37, Subd. 5, depends on the debtor’s historical involvement with farming and present intentions.” See In re Zimmel, 185 B.R…

“Whether a debtor qualifies for the exemption provided by MinmStat. 550.37, Subd. 5, depends on the debtor’s historical involvement with farming and present in tentions.” See In re Zimmel, 185 B.R. 786, 789 (Bankr.D.Minn.1995).

In re Zimmel, 185 B.R. 786, 789 (Bankr.D.Minn.1995).

As one bankruptcy court noted, “[i]t is unlikely that any state law permits persons to waive the right to claim exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522 (d), since waivers of exemptions are specifically unenforceable under 11 U.S.C. § 522 (e).” In re Zimmel, 185 B.R. 786, 791 (Bankr.D.Minn.1995).

Zimmel, 185 B.R. at 794.