Joseph A. Fox

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
Joseph A. Fox,
Debtor.
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 25-30798
Chapter 13
Judge Crist
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AVOID JUDGMENT LIEN (DOC. 25)
This matter is before the Court on Joseph A. Fox’s (the “Debtor”) Motion to Avoid Judicial
Lien of JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (Doc. 25) (the “Motion”). The Motion seeks to avoid the
judicial lien of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) on the Debtor’s real property located at
7250 Robindale Street, Dayton, Ohio 45424 (the “Property”) under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) because it
impairs 	the Debtor’s 	claimed 	homestead 	exemption 	available under 	Ohio 	Revised 	Code
§ 2329.66(A)(1) (the “Homestead Exemption”).1
1 The amount of the Homestead Exemption available in Ohio under Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(1)(a), from
April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2028, in the amount of $182,625, is set forth in the chart available on the Ohio
Judicial Conference website, available at https://www.ohiojudges.org/Resources/publications. The Homestead
Exemption is adjusted every three (3) years on April 1 based on the “consumer price index for all urban consumers,
as published by the Department of Labor[,]” and was most recently increased on April 1, 2025 to the present figure.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(B).
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: December 4, 2025
Case 3:25-bk-30798 Doc 43 Filed 12/04/25 Entered 12/05/25 09:32:46 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 6

2
I. 	Summary
This is a prime example of the impact that an appraisal, particularly the type and quality of
appraisal, can have upon a motion to avoid a judicial lien. In short, based on the auditor’s valuation
the judicial lien would have been partially avoidable, as calculated in accordance with § 522(f)(2),2
but based on the appraisal subsequently obtained, as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
3015-3(d)(2), the judicial lien is not avoidable.
II. 	Background
On May 1, 2025, Debtor filed a Chapter 13 Plan (Doc. 7) (the “Plan”), which proposed in
¶ 5.4.2—Judicial Liens Impairing an Exemption in Real Property—that Chase’s judicial lien in
the amount of $29,224.90 would be partially avoided in the amount of $22,616.95 upon “Plan
Completion/ Discharge.” Plan at 6. This provision listed a value of $336,830 for the Property and
the Debtor’s interest in the Property, which was also the value listed in Schedule A/B (Doc. 1 at
10).3 In addition, ¶ 5.4.2 of the Plan identified the first mortgage of Union Savings Bank as the
“OTHER Lien or Mortgage” in the amount of $147,597.05 and listed the exemption amount under
Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(1) as $182,625.4 Id.
On June 16, 2025, Debtor filed the Montgomery County, Ohio Auditor’s online value as
the appraisal (the “Auditor’s Value”), which corroborated the Debtor’s asserted value of $336,830
for the Property. Doc. 19.
On July 23, 2025, Debtor filed his Motion. The Motion also alleged a value of $336,380
for the Property, but differed from ¶ 5.4.2 of the Plan by claiming his Homestead Exemption was
$186,625 (as opposed to the statutory amount of $182,625) and asserting a higher balance due of
$151,636.82 on Union Savings Bank’s first mortgage, which was consistent with Union Savings
Bank’s proof of claim. POC 1-1 (filed May 16, 2025). Chase did not oppose the Motion. However,
2 Except as otherwise noted in this Order all references to sections are to Title 11 of the United States Code (the
“Bankruptcy Code”).
3 Debtor identified the nature of his ownership interest in the Property as “Fee simple,” such that the value of his
interest is the same as the value of the Property. See Schedule A/B, Doc. 1 at 10.
4 This exemption was claimed on Schedule C (Doc. 1 at 16).
Case 3:25-bk-30798 Doc 43 Filed 12/04/25 Entered 12/05/25 09:32:46 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 6

3
because Local Bankruptcy Rule (“LBR”) 3015-3(d)(2),5 concerning appraisals of real property in
chapter 13 cases, provides that an “auditor’s valuation” is not an acceptable appraisal when the
property is subject to lien avoidance, and because this is a circumstance in which the value could
make a difference in the outcome, the Court advised counsel for the Debtor that an appraisal would
be required before the Court could rule on the Motion.
On October 15, 2025, Debtor filed, but did not serve on Chase, a “Restricted Appraisal for
Current Market Value” (the “Appraisal”) (Doc. 36). The estimated value of the Debtor’s Property
in the Appraisal is $395,000, which is $58,170 more than the Auditor’s Value. Notwithstanding
that the Appraisal changed the value and therefore the calculation under § 522(f)(2)(A), Debtor
did not amend the Motion.
Although the Chapter 13 Trustee withdrew his objection to confirmation on August 15,
2025 (Doc. 31), the Debtor’s Plan has not yet been confirmed because of the issues with the
pending Motion and because there were two pending motions to dismiss—one for failure to turn
over a tax return and refund (Doc. 32), filed on September 19, 2025, and one for failure to make
plan payments (Doc. 37), filed on October 16, 2025.6 On November 13, 2025, the Chapter 13
Trustee file his Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss for Cause for Failure to Turn Over Tax Return
and Refund (Doc. 32) (Doc. 40). And on November 18, 2025, the hearing scheduled on the motion
to dismiss was canceled and the docket reflects that an agreed order for probation is forthcoming.
III. 	Analysis
The basic calculation for avoidance of a judicial lien on real property, pursuant to
§ 522(f)(2), is discussed in In re Brinley, 403 F.3d 415, 421 (6th Cir. 2005). See also In re
Bowshier, 389 B.R. 542, 546 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008) (Walter, J.) (explaining the Brinley
analysis). “In the Sixth Circuit, the statutory language has been construed very literally such that
the amounts of all liens are totaled and setoff against the value of the real estate . . . .” In re
5 LBR 3015-3(d)(2) also requires that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, an appraisal performed within the
preceding twelve (12) months must be filed and served on the trustee on or before the § 341 meeting of creditors for
each parcel of real property in which the debtor has a legal, equitable, or beneficial interest.” Because the Plan, filed
on May 1, 2025, proposed to avoid Chase’s judicial lien, the appropriate type of appraisal was not filed in this case
until more than three (3) months after the § 341 meeting of creditors was held on July 1, 2025.
6 Under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2) and (a)(9) require, as a condition to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan that all amounts
required by the plan to be paid before confirmation, be paid, and that debtor has filed all applicable tax returns.
Case 3:25-bk-30798 Doc 43 Filed 12/04/25 Entered 12/05/25 09:32:46 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 6

4
Bowshier, 389 B.R. at 546 (citing In re Brinley, 403 F.3d at 421). There can be several
complicating issues that arise when performing the calculation,7 but in this case it is a
comparatively straightforward exercise. As set forth in the local form Motion to Avoid Judicial
Lien on Real Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A),8 the language of § 522(f)(2)(A),
which governs the calculation, states as follows:
(2)(A) 	For 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.
Based on the numbers set forth in the Motion, using the Auditor’s Value, but using the
correct 	statutory 	amount 	for 	the 	Homestead 	Exemption, 	the 	calculation 	required 	under
§ 522(f)(2)(A) would have resulted in an impairment of $26,656.72, resulting in a partial
avoidance of the judicial lien. Using the local form motion template, the calculation would be as
follows:
a. Amount of judicial lien 	$29,224.90
b. Amount of all other liens 	$151,636.82
c. Value of exemptions 	$182,625.00
d. Total (lines a + b + c) 	$363,486.72
e. Value of the Debtor's interest in the Property 	$336,830.00
f. Extent of exemption impairment (line d - line e) 	$26,656.72
g. Amount of lien that remains on property (line a – line f): 	$2,568.18
Curiously, while ¶ 5.4.2 of the Plan asserted that the judicial lien would be partially avoided, which
is the outcome in the calculation above, albeit different than in ¶ 5.4.2 of the Plan, the Motion
7 Such issues include, but are not limited to, joint ownership, multiple liens, the value of the debtor’s interest, and the
values ascribed to the various liens, which often do not account for interest or attorney fees.
8 Use of the local form, which is available on the Court’s website, is preferred.
Case 3:25-bk-30798 Doc 43 Filed 12/04/25 Entered 12/05/25 09:32:46 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 6

5
asserts “there is no equity in the real estate available for the lienholder[.]” Mot. at 2. But this would
only be the result if the erroneous Homestead Exemption amount asserted in the Motion, $186,625,
which is $4,000 greater than the claimed statutory amount, is used in the calculation. Otherwise,
there is a remaining judicial lien of $2,568.18.
In contrast, using the Appraisal value (as opposed to the Auditor’s Value), the Court’s
calculation of the asserted impairment under § 522(f)(2)(A) reveals that Chase’s judicial lien is
not avoidable. Again, using the local form motion template, the calculation with the Appraisal
value and the correct Homestead Exemption is as follows (changed figures in bold type):
a. Amount of judicial lien 	$29,224.90
b. Amount of all other liens 	$151,636.82
c. Value of exemptions 	$182,625.00
d. Total (lines a + b + c) 	$363,486.72
e. Value of the Debtor's interest in the Property 	$395,000.00
f. Extent of exemption impairment (line d - line e) 	($31,513.28)
g. Amount of lien that remains on property (line a – line f): 	$29,224.909
Therefore, based on the Appraisal value and the correct statutory Homestead Exemption
(as claimed by Debtor in his Schedule C), the foregoing updated calculation shows that none of
Chase’s judicial lien is avoidable pursuant to § 522(f)(2)(A).
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Doc. 25) is hereby DENIED. Further,
it appears the proposed Plan cannot be confirmed and will need to be amended because it states
9 Paragraph 10 of the local form motion explains that if “line f is less than line a (i.e. line g is greater than $0), only a
portion of the judicial lien may be avoided (line f) and the judicial lien remains on the property to the extent of line g.”
In this case, the actual amount of line a – line f is $60,738.18 ($29,224.90 minus -$31,513.28). Thus, from a
mathematical standpoint the “other liens” (line b) would have to increase, the Property value (line e) would have to
decrease, or there would have to be some combination of both, that reduced the delta by more than $31,513.28 before
the first $.01 of Chase’s judicial lien of $29,224.90 would begin to be avoided. And those same amounts would have
to increase or decrease, in the aggregate, by $60,738.18 in order for Chase’s judicial lien to be fully avoided. Chase,
however, can only have a judicial lien for the amount owed and this is why the amount listed in line g above is
$29,224.90, not $60,738.18.
Case 3:25-bk-30798 Doc 43 Filed 12/04/25 Entered 12/05/25 09:32:46 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 6

6
that Chase’s judicial lien is to be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) as impairing the
homestead exemption. Plan at 6, ¶ 5.4.2.10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
Default List Plus Additional Parties
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., s/b/m/t Chase Bank USA, N.A., c/o National Bankruptcy Services,
LLC, P.O. Box 9013, Addison, Texas 75001
10 Although Chase has a judicial lien according to the Motion, Chase filed a non-priority unsecured proof of claim on
June 10, 2025, based on a credit card account. POC 4-1. Under the proposed Plan allowed non-priority unsecured
claims would not be paid. Plan at 1, ¶ 2.2.
Case 3:25-bk-30798 Doc 43 Filed 12/04/25 Entered 12/05/25 09:32:46 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 6