GABRIEL PADILLA PADILLA and MARIA A CASHION LUGO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE: : CASE NO. 11-02793 (ESL)
:
GABRIEL PADILLA PADILLA :
MARIA A. CASHION LUGO : CHAPTER 13
:
Debtors :
____________________________________:
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before this court upon the Trustee’s objection to Debtors’ claim for exemption
under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) (Dockets Nos. 12 & 25) and the oppositions filed by Debtors (Docket
No. 20 & 31). Debtors in this case have each claimed an exemption under Section 522(d)(5) over the
same real property that is owned separately by co-debtor Cashion. Co-debtor Padilla claims the
exemption alleging that he is entitled to a credit for the improvements he has made to the same real
property throughout their marriage. The Trustee sustains that Debtor Padilla is not entitled to the
claimed exemption over the alleged credit for the following reasons: (1) his alleged credit does not
constitute an “interest” for which the exemption can be claimed under Section 522(d)(5); (2) his
alleged credit does not constitute an “interest” over his spouse’s real property; (3) the conjugal
partnership has not been extinguished and hence, the credit is inexistent and thereby premature; and
(4) the alleged improvement expenses are questionable and debatable. For the reasons stated herein,
the Trustee’s objection to said exemption is granted.
Relevant Facts and Procedural Background
Debtors filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on March 31,
2011 (Docket No. 1) along with their Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs. In Schedule A ,1
Debtors reported that they jointly owned a primary residence located at 304 Scorpio Street in Isla
Verde, Carolina, Puerto Rico, valued at $152,000 (Docket No. 1, p. 27, hereinafter the “Real
Property”). They also claimed in Schedule C an exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(D)(11)(B) in the
amount of $43,250 over that same Real Property (Docket No. 1, p. 31).
Debtors only reported one primary residence as their only real property (Schedule A, Docket No. 1, p.	
1
27).
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On May 12, 2011, the Trustee filed an Objection to Debtors’ Claim for Exemption (Docket
No. 12) for two main reasons. First, the Trustee sustains that Debtors’ Real Property is not a joint
property as alleged in Schedule A (Docket No. 1., p. 27), but rather it is separately owned by co-
debtor Maria A. Cashion, who acquired it before she married her now husband, co-debtor Gabriel
Padilla. The Trustee consequently argues that because Cashion is the only one who owns all interest
in the Real Property, only she can claim an exemption over it under Section 522(d)(1), not her spouse,
and only in the amount of $21,625. The exemption under Section 522(d)(5), according to the Trustee,
should be allowed only up to $1,150. Second, the Trustee avers that Section 522(d)(11)(B) is
inapplicable in this case. The Trustee requests the entry of an order for Debtors to amend Schedule
A, based on his objection to the exemption.
On May 18, 2011, Debtors amended Schedule A (to correct that the sole owner of the primary
residence is co-debtor Maria A. Cashion) and Schedule C (to correct the Real Property exemptions).
See Docket No. 14. In amended Schedule C, Debtors claim three separate exemptions under 11
U.S.C. § 522(d)(5): one for $2,92.63, another for $10,825, and a last one for $7.37.2
A confirmation hearing of the amended plan was held on May 25, 2011 (Docket No. 17).
Debtors acknowledged that the only pending matter in this case was the exemption claimed under
Section 522(d)(5). The Court granted Debtors 15 days to file their reply to the Trustee’s Objection.
On June 1, 2011, the Trustee filed an unfavorable Report on Confirmation (Docket No. 19)
sustaining that: (1) Debtors fail the liquidation value test under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4); (2) that the
plan does not state the approximate date when the 2009 and 2010 tax refunds and future refunds are
to be tendered; and (3) that estate’s liquidation value may increase if Trustee’s objections to Debtors’
claim of exemptions were to be granted.
On June 3, 2011, Debtors filed a Reply to Trustee’s Objection to Debtor’s Claim for
Exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) (Docket No. 20) in which they acknowledge that the Real
The Court notices that Debtors also amended their Schedule B (Personal Property) to add new exemptions	
2
in regards to a Banco Santander checking account, clothing and jewelry (Docket No. 14, p. 4). The Trustee has not
objected those other amendments.
2
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Property belongs solely to co-debtor Maria A. Cashion , reason why they filed their Amended3
Schedules (Docket No. 14). Moreover, Debtors clarify that Cashion purchased the Real Property in
1992 while she was single, that she subsequently married Padilla in 1993 and that ever since their
conjugal partnership has made substantial improvements to the Property in the amount of $28,250.
They offer as evidence of those improvements a Sworn Declaration Regarding Improvements to
Debtors’ Residence since Marriage and Increase in Value to the Same and 6 pictures (Docket No.
20, pp. 5-11). Since the value of the Property in 1992 was reported at $92,737 and the current alleged
value is $152,000, Debtors aver that it would be reasonable to conclude that at least $10,825 of the
nearly $60,000 accumulated equity in the Real Property can be attributed to the improvements and
monetary investments undertaken by Debtors during their marriage. Consequently, Debtor Padilla
requests the an exemption of $10,825 under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) as a credit for the increase in value
to the residential property that can be attributed/allocated to the improvements made on the same.
After the Trustee’s motion for an extension of time to complete his research to file a response
to Debtors’ claims of exemptions (Docket No. 22) and an order granting the 45 days he requested
(Docket No. 23), on July 28, 2011, the Trustee filed a Motion in Compliance with the Court’s Order
at Docket No. 23 (Docket No. 25). First, the Trustee affirms that co-debtor Cashion is the only one
with an “interest” over the Real Property since it is owned solely by her. Second, the Trustee objects
to Debtors’ Sworn Declaration on the grounds that it is “self-serving” and “unfounded” . Lastly, the4
Trustee alleges that even if the improvements were to be proven in arguendo, the objection to
amended Schedule C persists inasmuch as co-debtor Padilla claims a “credit” that is premature and
currently nonexistent as a matter of state law. The specific legal authorities cited by the Trustee are:
Articles 95 and 1315 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 301 & 3681, and the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court’s Opinion in Muñiz Noriega v. Muñoz Bonet, 2010 T.S.P.R. 13.
After granting Debtors an extension of time to respond to the Trustee’s objections (Docket
See ¶ 3 of Debtors’ Sworn Statement at Docket No. 20, p. 5.	
3
The Trustee also asserts that it is “suspicious how debtors have now come up with such detailed	
4
itemization of the expenses, especially when they aver having made these throughout their nearly 20 years of
marriage”. Docket No. 25, ¶ 3, p. 2.
3
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 26), on September 28, 2011, Debtors filed another Reply (Docket No. 31). They allege that co-
Debtor Padilla does in fact have a legal interest over the Real Property because he has invested in
improvements for the same during 19 years of marriage and sustains that none are fraudulent. Thus,
he requests a total exemption of $10,825 pursuant to Section 522(d)(5). Co-debtor Padilla argues that
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), the term “property of the estate” includes “all legal or equitable
interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case”. Padilla further analyzes that
“property of the estate” is broad enough to cover many kinds of properties and that exemptions are
liberally construed in favor of debtors as “legal interests” over the Real Property in which he invested
from over 19 years.
Applicable Law
Exemptions
When a debtor files a bankruptcy petition, all of all of the debtor’s assets become property of
the bankruptcy estate [11 U.S.C. § 541] subject to the debtor’s right to reclaim certain property as
exempt [U.S.C. § 522(l)]. The Bankruptcy Code establishes types of property debtors may exempt
[11 U.S.C. § 522(b)] as well as the maximum value of the exemptions a debtor may claim in certain
assets [11 U.S.C § 522(d)]. Property debtor claims as exempt will be excluded from the bankruptcy
estate unless a party in interest objects [11 U.S.C. § 522(l)]. Also see Schwab v. Reilly, 130 S. Ct.
2652, 2656, 177 L. Ed. 2d 234, 242 (2010).
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(m), exemptions in bankruptcy cases apply separately with respect
to each debtor in a joint case, subject to the limitations established in Section 522(b).
Section 522(d)(5) provides as follows:
The following property may be exempted under subsection (b)(2) of this section:
(5) The debtor's aggregate interest in any property, not to exceed in value $ 1,150 plus
up to $ 10,825 of any unused amount of the exemption provided under paragraph (1)
of this subsection. 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5).
In other words, under Section 522(d)(5), a debtor is allowed a general exemption of $1,150
--sometimes known as the “wild card exemption”-- plus up to $10,825 of the unused portion of the
homestead exemption. See Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶
522.09[5] (16 ed. 2011).th
4
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
When a debtor takes an exemption in a particular asset pursuant to Section 522, the “property
claimed as exempt [within the meaning of the section] is merely an interest in property not to exceed
a specified value.” Barroso Herrans v. Lugo Mender, 364 B.R. 463, 469 (D.P.R. 2007), aff’d 524 F.
3d 341 (1 Cir. 2008). “[A] debtor must have a an ownership interest in property before an exemptionst
may be claimed.” In re Cohen, 263 B.R. 724, 726 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2001). Also see In re Cunningham,
5 B.R. 709, 711 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1980); In re Montanez, 233 B.R. 791, 795 (Bankr. E.D.Mich. 1999)
(citing First Bank of Linden v. Sloma (In re Sloma); 43 F.3d 637, 640 (11 Cir. 1995) (Debtor cannotth
exempt property that the debtor does not own.); In re Hartman, 211 B.R. 899, 903 (Bankr. C.D.Ill.
1997) (“It is a fundamental tenet of the law of exemptions that the debtor must have an ownership
interest in the property before an exemption may be claimed.”); In re Luhr, 205 B.R. 447 (Bankr.
S.D.Ga. 1997); In re de Kleinman, 172 B.R. 764 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994) (Debtor waived exemption
claim in insurance cause of action by voluntarily assigning it to her daughter); and In re Alden, 73
B.R. 215 (Bankr. N.D.Fla. 1986) (Debtor not permitted to exempt tax refund in which her husband
had sole rights).
Property interests
“Property interests are created and defined by state law.” Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594,
2616, 180 L.Ed. 2d 475, 502 (2011), citing Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific
Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443, 451, 127 S. Ct. 1199, 167 L. Ed. 2d 178 (2007), all quoting Butner
v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S. Ct. 914, 918, 59 L. Ed. 2d 136, 141-142 (1979).
What is an “interest” in real property upon which an exemption can be claimed under Puerto
Rico law?
In Puerto Rico, upon marriage, a new entity is created, which commences on the day of
marriage [Article 1393 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. § 3622] and will own “property
acquired for a valuable consideration during the marriage at the expense of the partnership property,
whether the acquisition is made for the partnership or for one of the spouses only; that obtained by
the industry, salaries, or work of the spouses or of either of them; the fruits, income, or interest
collected or accrued during the marriage, coming from the partnership property, or from that which
belongs to either one of the spouses”. Article 1401 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §
5
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3641. The conjugal partnership is liable for “all the debts and obligations . . . which affect the private
property of the spouses as well as the partnership property; the minor repairs or of mere preservation,
made during the marriage, to the private property of the husband or the wife: extensive repairs [to
private property] shall not be chargeable to the partnership; extensive or minor repairs to the property
of the partnership; the support of the family and the education of the children in common, and of the
legitimate children of one of the spouses only.” Article 1408 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31
L.P.R.A.§ 3661; see also Fernández-Cerra v. Commercial Ins. of Newark, 344 F. Supp. 314, 316
(D.P.R. 1972).
When determining if the interest in a certain property belongs separately to a single spouse
or to the conjugal partnership, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has ruled that “the original title
shall be determinant, independently of the changes or modifications that said property undergoes
[and therefore] ... the separate source of real property does not lose said character just because of the
fact that later investments are made from property belonging to the marital community.” García
González v. Montero Saldaña, 7 P.R. Offic. Trans. 353, 368-369, 107 D.P.R. 319, 335 (1978)
(emphasis added).
The conjugal partnership is terminated and liquidated only by death or a final judicial decree
terminating it (on grounds provided by the Puerto Rico Civil Code) or ruling on its nullity. Articles
105 & 1315 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 381 & 3681. Only then can either spouse
–or the heirs of a deceased one– claim their half in said partnership pursuant to Article 1295 of the
Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. § 3631, which provides that “[b]y virtue of the conjugal
partnership the earnings or profits indiscriminately obtained by either of the spouses during the
marriage shall belong to the husband and the wife, share and share alike, upon the dissolution of the
marriage.” 31 L.P.R.A. § 3631 (emphasis added).
Discussion
Co-debtor Padilla requests that the unused amount of the homestead exemption under Section
522(d)(5) be declared exempt for his alleged investments (interest) in the Real Property that is owned
by his wife, co-debtor Cashion. He claims that he in fact has an “interest” over all the alleged
6
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
improvements he (as a member of the conjugal partnership) incurred over the private property of his
wife and that his “right, i.e., credit, already exists, can never be lost and is recoverable regardless of
if the property disappears or is destroyed”. Docket No. 31, ¶ 18, p. 5. Padilla cites the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court case of Muñiz Noriega v. Muñoz Bonet, 2010 T.S.P.R. 13, to support his conclusion,
which the Trustee also cited to support his conclusion that co-debtor Padilla does not have an interest
in the Real Property. Docket No. 25, ¶¶ 7-9, pp. 3-5. A careful reading of that case shows that the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court conditioned the existence of the credit “upon the dissolution of the
conjugal partnership” . Muñiz Noriega v.Muñoz Bonet, 2010 T.S.P.R. 13 at **14-15. Therefore,5
because the conjugal partnership between Cashion and Padilla admittedly has not been terminated or
dissolved by a judicial decree or otherwise, the latter cannot currently claim an interest in the Real
Property as partner in the conjugal partnership under Section 522(d)(5). Article 1295 of the Puerto
Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. § 3631. As ruled in García González v. Montero Saldaña, 7 P.R. Offic.
Trans. at 368-369, 107 D.P.R. at 335, “the original title shall be determinant” (emphasis added) to
establish the interest in a property, if any. In this case the original title belongs exclusively and
separately to co-debtor Cashion, not Padilla. Therefore, as a matter of Puerto Rico law, Padilla cannot
claim an interest in a property whose original title is not his, even assuming in arguendo that he in
fact made all the investments itemized in Docket No. 20. Only co-debtor Cashion may exempt any
amount of the homestead exemption of the value of her property under Section 522(d)(5).
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the Trustee’s objection to exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5)
(Dockets Nos. 12 & 25) is granted and thus only co-debtor Cashion may exempt her property under
that section in the amount of $1,150.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla himself copied that phrase in Spanish in his Reply (Docket No. 31, ¶ 18, p. 5).	
5
7
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28 day of November, 2011.th
8
Case:11-02793-ESL13 Doc#:35 Filed:11/28/11 Entered:11/28/11 13:21:59 Desc: Main
Document Page 8 of 8