Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

While the answer seems straightforward, the analysis to get there is
interesting enough that I am going to share
There are two reasons why your client may use the Federal Exemptions.
First, Arizona exemptions have been found to provide absolutely no
exemptions to non-residents. How does this help? The "savings clause,"
which is the hanging paragraph after 522(b)(3)(C), allows the Debtor to use
federal exemptions.
The trick here is if Arizona allowed even $1 to be exempted, the savings
clause may not apply since it specifically says, "If the effect of the
domiciliary requirement ... is to render the debtor ineligible for *any*
exemption, the debtor may elect to [use federal exemptions]." The $1
exemption could even be on something the Debtor does not even want to
exempt because they do not own an item of that type.
The second reason is that Arizona allows non-residents to use the Federal
exemption scheme. You can find the code here:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

522(b)(3)(A) analysis says California client must use Arizona exemptions.
I found an Arizona case In re Rody, 468 B.R. 384 (Bankr.Ariz., 2012) that
says the Arizona exemptions only apply to Arizona residents, therefore the
non-resident of Arizona (who is now a California client) can use 522(d).
Has anyone used 522(d) in this scenario?
Best regards
Larry Webb
California Board of Legal Specialization
Certified Specialist in Bankruptcy Law
State Bar of California 229344
Central District California
"A Debt Relief Agency"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.