Robbie L. Oglesby

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
In re: 	ROBBIE L. O GLESBY,
Debtor
Case No. 	04-38823
Judge Waldron
Chapter 7
DECISION ON ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO AVOID JUDICIAL
LIENS OF QUEEN CITY DRYWALL
INC.
DATED AT DAYTON, OHIO this 22nd Day of November, 2005:
Background
On October 11, 2004, Robbie L. Oglesby, the Debtor, filed a chapter 7
bankruptcy. (Doc. 1) On Schedule C, the Debtor claimed exemptions on various
parcels of real property. 	Specifically, the Debtor claimed a $5,000 homestead
exemption pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(1) on 6011 Theodore
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2005
____________________________________________________________
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 11

2
Avenue, 	Hamilton, Ohio, the Debtor’s principal residence. 	In addition, the
Debtor claimed a $1.00 exemption on five other parcels of property using Ohio
Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(18), commonly referred to as the Ohio wildcard
exemption. 	The Debtor received a discharge on February 25, 2005. (Doc. 40)
The chapter 7 Trustee filed a no asset report on June 30, 2005. (Doc. 64)
On May 31, 2005, the Debtor filed a Motion To Avoid Judicial Liens of
Queen City Drywall Inc, (the “Creditor”). (Doc. 50) 	On June 16, 2005, the
Creditor filed a response pro se. (Doc. 57) Noting that a corporation cannot
appear in this court without counsel, the court gave the Creditor an opportunity to
obtain representation and file an appropriate response. (Doc. 60 – Order of June
28, 2005) 	On July 8, 2005, a response was filed by counsel for the Creditor.
(Doc. 68)
On July 18, 2005, the court set a pretrial conference for August 24, 2005.
(Doc. 71 – Order) 	The parties filed Stipulations on August 23, 2005. (Doc. 73)
At the pretrial it was determined, by agreement of the parties, that there were no
contested factual disputes and the Debtor’s Motion (Doc. 50) presented issues of
law which could be determined solely on the parties’ filings. The court set a
briefing schedule. (Doc. 74 – Order of August 24, 2005) 	Pursuant to this Order
(Doc. 74), the parties filed a Statement of Judicial Notice of Facts Regarding
Debtor’s 	Motion 	To 	Avoid 	Judicial 	Liens 	of 	Queen 	City 	Drywall, 	Inc. 	on
September 8, 2005. (Doc. 76) On September 26, 2005, the Debtor filed a Notice
of Supplemental Memorandum In Support Of Debtor’s Motion to Avoid Judicial
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 11

3
Liens 	Of 	Queen 	City 	Drywall, 	Inc. 	(Doc. 	79) 	The 	Creditor 	did 	not 	file 	a
memorandum in support of its position.
Jurisdiction
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Standing
Order of Reference entered in this District. This is a core proceeding pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (K) and (O).
Stipulated Facts and Analysis 1
A. Exemption Issues
On February 4, 2004, the Creditor filed a judgment lien in the amount of
$23,456.52 with the Clerk of Courts, Butler County, Ohio, JD2004-02-0236. 	The
Judgment lien attaches to six parcels of property, which are referenced below.
The Debtor claimed on Schedule C (Doc. 1), a $1 exemption each in five
different parcels of property pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(18), 2
customarily referred to as the Ohio wildcard exemption, which states:
Every person who is domiciled in this state may hold property
exempt from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy
a judgment or order, as follows:
* * * * *
The person's interest, not to exceed four hundred dollars, in any
property, except that division (A)(18) of this section applies only in
bankruptcy proceedings. (emphasis added)
1 All the facts are included in the Agreed Statement of Facts Regarding Debtor’s Motion To Avoid
Judicial Liens Of Queen City Drywall Inc. (Doc. 73).
2 See In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr S.D. Ohio 2005), citing In re Young, 93 B.R. 590,
593 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1988) (“Ohio has chosen to ‘opt-out’ of the federal exemptions, and,
therefore, exemptions available to debtors in Ohio are based on Ohio law.”)
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 11

4
The five properties are:
• 	1550 Pecks Blvd Hamilton, Ohio
• 	518 Caldwell Hamilton, Ohio
• 	601 Ross Avenue Hamilton, Ohio
• 	610 Sycamore Street Hamilton, Ohio
• 	602-604 Sycamore Hamilton, Ohio
In addition, the Debtor claimed $5,000 exemption on real property at 6011
Theodore Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio, the Debtor’s principal residence, pursuant to
Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(1)(b), the Ohio homestead exemption. 3
The Creditor did not specifically object to exemptions claimed by the
Debtor. 	However, in the Creditor’s response to the Debtor’s Motion to avoid the
Creditor’s judicial lien held on all six properties, it appears the argument is made
that the Ohio wildcard exemption is not available for lien avoidance, since it is
restricted to the Debtor’s primary residence, and/or is improper to claim on
multiple parcels of property. See Doc. 68.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently held when the language of
an Ohio statute is “clear and definite, it must be applied as written.” State v.
Anthony, 96 Ohio St.3d 172, 175, 772 N.E.2d 1167, 1170 (2002) 	Moreover, as
this court has recently noted, “[i]t is a settled law in Ohio that Ohio exemption
provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and a debtor’s
3 Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(1)(b) states that: “Every person who is domiciled in this state
may hold property exempt from execution. garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment
or order, as follows: (1)(a) . . . (b) In the case of all other judgments and orders, the person’s
interest, not to exceed five thousand dollars, in one parcel or item of real or personal property that
the person or a dependent of the person uses as a residence.”
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 11

5
dependents and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the
exemption.” In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005)
Keeping these principles in mind, the court determines the language of the
statutory phrase “any property” does not place any limitation concerning the type
of property in which the wildcard exemption may be appropriately claimed.
Further, the Court determines the Debtor is not limited to taking some, or all, of
the wildcard exemption on a single parcel of property. The court agrees with the
analysis in In re Miller, 198 B.R. 500, 505-06 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1996):
This Court has found no case law on this issue interpreting the
Ohio wildcard exemption. This is due, no doubt, to the relatively
small exemption allowed in Ohio (the Federal and many other State
exemptions allow a debtor to also use an amount equal to the
unused 	portion 	of 	the 	debtor's 	homestead 	exemption 	as 	their
wildcard exemption), and the case law that has previously existed
up to this time in the Sixth Circuit that curtailed the use of a debtor's
§ 522(f) avoidance powers. However, as noted above, the phrase
"any property" used in the wildcard exemptions in other jurisdictions
has been universally interpreted very broadly. Further, other Ohio
exemptions, such as the homestead, wearing apparel and bedding,
household 	goods, 	and 	jewelry 	exemptions, 	found 	in 	O.R.C. 	§
2329.66(A)(1)(b), (3), (4)(b), and (4)(c) respectively, specifically
state when the exemption can be applied to only one particular
item. Further still, it would be arbitrary and crude to limit the
wildcard exemption to one parcel of property, because a "parcel" is
only defined as a congruous piece of property, and could contain
property which is diverse in other ways, and could be quite large.
See 	Blacks 	Law 	Dictionary, 	Sixth 	Edition, 	1990. 	Allowing 	the
avoidance of the lien on all the property in this case, and not on a
case where non-congruous parcels could be more similar and used
conjunctively, and be quite smaller, would be ridiculous. Finally,
allowing the Debtor to apportion his wildcard exemption among
multiple items of property appears to this Court to be the plain
reading of the federal as well the state statute. Thus, this Court will
allow the Debtor in the case herein to divide his wildcard exemption
among all parcels of real property, and avoid the liens thereon.
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 11

6
The court finds the exemptions are properly claimed and are available for lien
avoidance on multiple parcels of property.
B. Lien Avoidance Issues
Although the Debtor’s exemptions are properly claimed and are available
for lien avoidance, the reamining issue is whether the Creditor’s lien can be
avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) on any, or all, of the six properties in this
case. See In re Mangold, 244 B.R. 901, 904 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2000), citing
Holland v. Star Bank N.A. (In re Holland), 151 F.3d 547, 549 (6th Cir. 1998) (“The
Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to avoid judicial liens to the extent that liens
impair the debtor’s exemption.”) 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) states, in relevant part, that:
(1) 	Notwithstanding 	any 	waiver 	of 	exemptions 	but 	subject 	to
paragraph (3), the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an
interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs
an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under
subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is—
(A) a judicial lien . . . .
(2)(A) 	For the purposes of this subsection, a lien shall be
considered to impair an exemption to the extent that the sum
of—
(i) 	the lien,
(ii) 	all other liens on the property; and
(iii) 	the amount of the exemption that the debtor
could claim if there were no liens on the property;
exceeds the value that the debtor’s interest in the property
would have in the absence of any liens.4
In Brinley v. LPP Mtge., Ltd. (In re Brinley), 403 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2005),
the Sixth Circuit resolved the proper interpretation of § 522(f). 	In order to
4 Subsection (2)(A) of § 522(f) was added as part of the 1994 amendments to the Bankruptcy
Code. See Brinley v. LPP Mtge., Ltd. (In re Brinley), 403 F.3d 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2005).
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 11

7
determine if a judicial lien can be avoided, a simple formula is applied. Id. at 421.
From the value of the property at the time the chapter 7 petition was filed, 5 the
proper calculation is to subtract the amount of the lien sought to be avoided, all
other liens on the property and the exemption available as if there were no liens
on the property. Id. at 421-22. A lien is impaired to the extent the value of all the
liens and the claimed exemption exceeds the value of the property. Id. at 421.
To the extent the impairment is more than the value of the Creditor’s lien, the lien
can be avoided in full. Id. 	If the impairment is less than the value of the
Creditor’s lien, the lien can only be avoided “to the extent” of the impairment. Id.
Although bankruptcy law typically looks to state law regarding property rights and
lien priorities, the relative priority of the liens under Ohio law is not relevant for
purposes of applying § 522(f). Id at 421-22, citing Kolich v. Antioch Laurel
Veterinary Hosp. (In re Kolich), 328 F.3d 406, 410 (8th Cir. 2003).
Although it may appear that the Debtor’s claimed exemption of $1.00 is an
insignificant amount, the law accords great significance to $1.00 in issues
involving lien avoidance. 	See Scheuer v. Marine Midland Bank (In re Scheuer),
213 B.R. 415, 419 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1997) (“On the other hand, if Marine is
determined to be secured to the extent of only one dollar, then the Debtors would
not be permitted to modify its claim. 	In other words, a single dollar of value
would allow Marine full recovery on its claim.”); Accord In re Neverla, 194 B.R.
5 See In re Hall, 327 B.R. 424, 427-28 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2005) (“Those courts that have
considered the question have apparently uniformly held that the appropriate time for determining
the value of the property subject to a lien which the Debtors seek to avoid under § 522(f) is the
date on which the petition was filed.”).
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 11

8
547 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1996). 	See also Keith M. Lundin, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy,
Third Ed., Volume 2, § 128.1, page 128-14 (2002).
With the Brinley standard in mind, the court has determined the Creditor’s lien
can be avoided on all six properties:
C. Application to Specific Properties
The Agreed Statement of Facts Regarding Debtor’s Motion To Avoid
Judicial Liens Of Queen City Drywall Inc. (Doc. 73) establishes the agreed value
of all the relevant liens and property values.
602-604 Sycamore Street
The property at 602-604 Sycamore Street, Hamilton Ohio 45011 had a
value of $75,000.00 and the Debtor has two mortgages totaling $256,000.00.
Without regard to the tax liens, which covers all six properties, and the Creditor’s
lien (which are discussed below), it is clear that the Debtor’s $1 exemption is
impaired and the $23,456.52 judicial lien of the Creditor can be avoided in full.
The Remaining Five Properties
The property at 6011 Theodore Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011 had a
value of $145,000.00 at the time of filing and the two mortgages of Citifinancial
Mortgage total $130.510.00. 	The Judicial Lien of the Creditor is $23,456.52.
The lien of the I.R.S. is $45,065.05. 	The lien of the State of Ohio is $868.00.
The total of the liens and the $5,000 exemption are $204,899.57. 	Thus, the
exemption is impaired by $59,899.57. 	Since the impairment exceeds the value
of the Creditor’s lien, the $5,000 exemption is impaired and the judicial lien of the
Creditor can be fully avoided as to this property.
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 11

9
The property at 1550 Pecks Blvd had a value of $320,000.00 at the time of
filing. 	The balance from the mortgage with Harrison Building and Loan and a
delinquent real estate tax lien is $319,500.00. The Judicial Lien of the Creditor is
$23,456.52. The lien of the I.R.S. is $45,065.05. 	The lien of the State of Ohio is
$868.00. 	The total of the liens and the $1 exemption are $388,890.57. 	Thus,
the exemption is impaired by $68,890.57. 	Since the impairment exceeds the
value of the Creditor’s lien, the $1 exemption is impaired and the judicial lien of
the Creditor can be fully avoided as to this property.
The property at 518 Caldwell had a value of $30,000.00 at the time of
filing. The balance from the mortgage with First Financial Bank and a delinquent
real 	estate 	tax 	lien 	are 	$26,300.00. 	The 	Judicial 	Lien 	of 	the 	Creditor 	is
$23,456.52. The lien of the I.R.S. is $45,065.05. 	The lien of the State of Ohio is
$868.00. 	The total of the liens and the $1 exemption are $95,690.57. Thus, the
exemption is impaired by $65,690.57. 	Since the impairment exceeds the value
of the Creditor’s lien, the $1 exemption is impaired and the judicial lien of the
Creditor can be fully avoided as to this property.
The property at 601 Ross Avenue had a value of $78,000.00 at the time of
filing. 	The balance from the mortgage with American General Finance and a
delinquent real estate tax lien is $69,722.00. 	The Judicial Lien of the Creditor is
$23,456.52. The lien of the I.R.S. is $45,065.05. 	The lien of the State of Ohio is
$868.00. 	The total of the liens and the $1 exemption are $139,112.57. 	Thus,
the exemption is impaired by $61,112.57. 	Since the impairment exceeds the
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 11

10
value of the Creditor’s lien, the $1 exemption is impaired and the judicial lien of
the Creditor can be fully avoided as to this property.
The property at 610 Sycamore Street had a value of $40,000.00 at the
time of filing. 	The balance from the mortgage with Household Bank and a
delinquent real estate tax lien is $27,030.00. 	The Judicial Lien of the Creditor is
$23,456.52. The lien of the I.R.S. is $45,065.05. 	The lien of the State of Ohio is
$868.00. 	The total of the liens and the $1 exemption are $96,420.57. Thus, the
exemption is impaired by $56,420.57. 	Since the impairment exceeds the value
of the Creditor’s lien, the $1 exemption is impaired and the judicial lien of the
Creditor can be fully avoided as to this property.
The remaining issue presented by the Debtor’s motion is whether it is
appropriate, as in the calculations above, to count the Creditor’s judicial lien, the
I.R.S. tax lien and the state of Ohio tax lien separately for each property.
However, if the total amount of these liens was only counted once for all the five
remaining properties in a hypothetical “mass” sale, the result is the same. 	After
the mortgages and tax liens separately held on each property, and the separate
exemption for each property, the total net equity left on all the properties is
$34,934.00. 6 The 	total 	of 	the 	Creditor’s 	lien 	($23.456.52), 	the 	I.R.S. 	lien
($45,065.05) and the Ohio tax lien ($868.00) is $69,390.57. 	Under this analysis,
the total liens on all the properties exceed the net equity on the remaining
6 Based on the stipulations of the parties (Doc. 73) and the court’s independent review of the
parties’ calculations, the net equity in the remaining five properties, without consideration of the
I.R.S. lien or the Ohio tax lien, are as follows: 6011 Theodore Avenue – $9,490.00; 1550 Pecks
Blvd. – 499.00; 518 Caldwell – $3,699.00; 601 Ross Avenue – $8,277.00 and 610 Sycamore --
$12,969.00. As noted earlier, the 602-04 Sycamore property is not considered because it has no
net equity based on its two mortgages alone and, therefore the Creditor’s lien can be avoided
without regard to the I.R.S. lien or the Ohio tax lien.
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 11

11
properties by $34,456.57. 	Since the impairment of the remaining properties is
more than the Creditor’s lien, the judicial lien of the Creditor can be fully avoided.
The court expresses no opinion on this alternative method of applying Brinley
where a lien covers multiple properties. 	Instead, the court finds, for purposes of
this decision, whether analyzing each property separately or in the aggregate,
the result is the same.
Conclusion
The Debtor’s Motion (Doc. 50) is granted and the judgment lien of Queen
City Drywall, Inc., filed with the Clerk of Courts, Butler County, Ohio, JD2004-02-
0236, is avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).
c:
Robbie L. Oglesby, 6011 Theodore Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011 (Debtor)
Harry B. Zornow, Esq., 860 NW Washington Boulevard, Eden Roc Suite J,
Hamilton, Ohio 45013 (Atty. for the Debtor)
Michael R. Eckhart, Esq., 580 Lincoln Park Boulevard, Suite 244, Kettering, Ohio
45429 (Atty. for the Queen City Drywall, Inc.)
###
Case 3:04-bk-38823 Doc 83 Filed 11/22/05 Entered 11/22/05 13:54:19 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 11