If the effect of section 522(b)(3)'s domiciliary requirements is to render a debtor ineligible for any state's exemptions because the domiciliary state has opted out of the federal exemption scheme and does not permit non-residents from claiming the state's exemptions, the debtor may elect to exempt property under section 522(d).
Date of decision: 9/7/07
Full opinion here.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
In re VIKKI J. NICKERSON - Case No. 07-41889
Posted by Rachel Lynn Foley at 12:06 PM 0 comments
Labels: 522(b)(3), 522(d), BAPCPA, Judge Federman, MOW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

