Summary

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Owen v. Owen — Dissenting Opinion

The Court simply overlooks the fact that for purposes of determining whether a lien is avoidable-rather than for the purpose of determining the extent to which the lien should be avoided-the question whether the debtor "would have been entitled" to an exemption is addressed to the state of affairs that existed at the time the lien attached.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Owen v. Owen — Dissenting Opinion

At that time, the exemption was available only to a "head of a household" under Article 10, § 4 of the Florida Constitution. An amendment that became effective in 1985 broadened the exemption to extend to "a natural person." Fla. Const., Art. 10, § 4. On the effective date of this amendment petitioner became entitled to the homestead exemption at issue in this case. [2] Thus, it is undisputed that the petitioner had an exemption on his condominium when he filed his bankruptcy petition in 1986, but did not have a right to that exemption in 1984 when respondent's judicial lien attached.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Owen v. Owen — Dissenting Opinion

The second provision that is relevant to this suit, § 522 (f) , is concerned with the priority of secured creditors not the claims of general creditors. Section 522 (f) establishes a rule of priority between the debtor's legal interest and creditors' security interests in exempt property as opposed to the property of the estate. The statute establishes the priority by allowing the debtor to avoid the fixing of judicial liens and certain nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interests under the right circumstances to the extent that they encumber the exemption.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature