No. 20-499

Nathaniel Richard Hull v. Jeffrey J. Rockwell

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2020-10-16
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: attachment bankruptcy bankruptcy-code circuit-split creditor-rights creditors homestead-exemption property-exemption reinvestment state-law
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-02-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a debtor may keep a state-law homestead exemption inside bankruptcy, notwithstanding that the proceeds would be subject to attachment and execution outside bankruptcy because the debtor sold the home and the exemption expired under applicable state law

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED Virtually every State has a “homestead exemption” that shields a debtor’s home from attachment and execution. Most States also permit the debtor to sell his or her home and buy a new one within a limited time (say, six months). But if the debtor fails to timely reinvest, the exemption expires and creditors can attach or execute upon the proceeds. The Bankruptcy Code incorporates “State or local law that is applicable on the date of the filing of the petition” to determine what property is exempt from distribution to creditors. 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(8). In conflict with the Ninth Circuit and Fifth Circuit, the First Circuit held that, inside bankruptcy, a homestead exemption can never expire even if it would have expired under applicable state law outside bankruptcy. That decision enables debtors to permanently shield proceeds from bankruptcy creditors even after the debtor sold the home, the reinvestment period elapsed, and the money is being kept as cash. The question presented is: Whether a debtor may keep a state-law homestead exemption inside bankruptcy, notwithstanding that the proceeds would be subject to attachment and execution outside bankruptcy because the debtor sold the home and the exemption expired under applicable state law. @

Docket Entries

2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-02-02
Reply of petitioner Nathaniel Richard Hull filed. (Distributed)
2021-01-19
Brief of respondent Jeffrey J. Rockwell in opposition filed.
2021-01-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 19, 2021.
2021-01-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 15, 2021 to January 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 15, 2021.
2020-11-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 16, 2020 to January 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)

Attorneys

Jeffrey J. Rockwell
Daniel L. GeyserAlexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Respondent
Daniel L. GeyserAlexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Respondent
Nathaniel Richard Hull
Zachary D. TrippWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Petitioner
Zachary D. TrippWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Petitioner