Bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Exemptions - Intentional Tort

    The United States Bankruptcy Court at Alexandria, Virginia, in the case of In Re: Scott, entered a judgment in favor of the creditor in the amount of $12,735 on a theory of conversion. In doing so, the Bankruptcy Court determined that the judgment was nondischargeable under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6). In Scott the Bankruptcy Court found that the creditor hired the debtor to look after the creditor's elderly mother, paying the debtor $28,000 in advance wages. The debtor quit the job six weeks later and refused to return the unused funds. The debtor subsequently filed for bankruptcy and the creditor filed a nondischargeability complaint. In the debtor's bankruptcy schedules she listed exemptions of a car, clothing, household goods, jewelry and a savings account. The creditor challenged both the specific items claimed as well as the debtor's right to claim any exemptions at all against a claim for an intentional tort. 

    In regard to the creditor's challenge for specific items, the Bankruptcy Court found that Virginia state law exemptions include the homestead exemption under Virginia Code §34-4 and the poor debtor's exemption under Virginia Code §34-26. The Court ruled that the debtor was entitled to claim a "poor debtor's" exemption on the car, and that the debtor's interest in the vehicle was less than $2,000. The Court also found that the debtor's claim for $5,400 in exemptions for the household goods did not exceed the amount allowed under Virginia Code §34-4. The Bankruptcy Court denied the debtor's "poor debtor's" claim for exemption for a herringbone gold necklace, as there was no evidence that the necklace was a family heirloom. The Bankruptcy Court also denied the debtor's claim for an exemption in a $300 savings account as tenants by the entirety property.

    In regard to the creditor's claim that the debtor was not entitled to any exemptions because Virginia law does not allow for the assertion of Virginia exemptions against a claim based on an intentional tort, the Bankruptcy Court examined the bankruptcy statutes and the results that other courts had reached on similar questions. The Bankruptcy Court noted that other courts had reached different opinions. However, the Bankruptcy Court decided that since Congress had specifically legislated as to the type of claims that could be enforced against exempt property, and since the creditor's claim in this case did not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions, in this case, the debtor was entitled to her exemptions notwithstanding the fact that the creditor held a nondischargeable claim based upon an intentional tort.