Surcharge of Exemption Violated § 522(k)

By William Houston Brown, Adviser/Editor, Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education

On March 4, in Justice Scalia’s unanimous opinion, Law v. Siegel,1 the Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority when it surcharged the Chapter 7 debtor’s homestead exemption for the payment of a portion of the trustee’s administrative expense. Although a Chapter 7 case, the holding and reasoning of the Court is important for Chapter 13 cases, its trustees and creditors. The opinion contains significant reminders about the limits of the bankruptcy court’s authority, as well as lessons about how the bad result might be avoided in future cases.

First, a reminder of what is at play, with the understanding that this brief article restricts itself to the exemption issues addressed in Law.2 In all bankruptcy cases, the individual debtor is entitled to claim exemptions,3 and generally objections to claimed exemptions must be timely,4 with failure to timely object leading to allowance of the claimed exemptions.5 If allowed, the exemptions, subject to specific statutory exceptions, are protected from pre-bankruptcy claims of creditors; that is, the exemptions survive discharge.6 Moreover, the Code specifically protects allowed exemptions from administrative expense claims in the case, again subject to certain exceptions.7 As will be seen, this last Code provision was critical to the Law decision.

With that background, an overview of the facts in Law, as stated in the Supreme Court’s decision: The debtor’s only significant asset was his California home, which he valued at $363,348, and the debtor claimed the California homestead of $75,000. The debtor had a first mortgage, apparently valid, for approximately $147,000, but he asserted that there was a second mortgage held by an individual. After much expensive litigation, the bankruptcy court determined that the second mortgage did not exist. The asserted second mortgage, which would have consumed all equity in the home, was intended to prevent the trustee’s sale of the home. In the course of prolonged litigation, including avoidance of the fraudulent deed of trust, the trustee incurred $500,000 in attorney fees. No big surprise, under these facts, that the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, approved a surcharge of the $75,000 exemption, permitting the trustee to capture that in partial reimbursement of incurred fees. There was appellate authority in that Circuit approving surcharge as an equitable remedy in appropriate cases.8

Some were surprised at the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in a case with such bad facts, but there was a split in Circuit authority on at least portions of the surcharge issue. The First Circuit had followed the Ninth, holding that the bankruptcy court had authority to surcharge when the Chapter 7 debtor had willfully concealed nonexempt funds.9 The Tenth Circuit had earlier concluded that there was no statutory authority to surcharge.10

The Law opinion’s results are terrible for the trustee, who diligently pursued a deceitful debtor, but the reasoning of the Court should not be a surprise. The crux of the opinion is that specific Code provisions prevail over equitable remedies, and we have seen this reasoning before.11 As the Court said, “Section 105(a) confers authority to ‘carry out’ the provisions of the Code, but it is quite impossible to do that by taking action that the Code prohibits.”12 The Law Court observed that the claimed homestead exemption had been allowed, becoming final before the surcharge was imposed, since no one objected to it, applying Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz.13 The Court then stated that the surcharge contravened § 522(k), which prevented the allowed exemption from being liable for administrative expenses, finding that the trustee’s attorney fees were clearly an administrative expense.

Bottom line—the imposition of a surcharge is not authorized in the Code, and the bankruptcy court exceeded both § 105(a) and its inherent authority when it created a non-Code remedy. The Court concluded that Congress had created “meticulous—not to say mind-numbingly detailed—enumeration of exemptions and exceptions [which] confirms that courts are not authorized to create additional exceptions.”14

Where does this leave trustees, creditors and the bankruptcy courts? First, it is a reminder to object to all suspect exemptions, and do it timely. Of course, within the brief time for normal objections, the trustee or creditors may not yet know that the debtor’s claimed exemption is improper, but remember that Rule 4003(b)(1) permits extension of the objection time, provided such a motion is itself timely.

Look at the basis for the debtor’s exemption claim if made under State law, since there may be state-law remedies for an improper claim. The Law Court noted that state-law remedies for debtor misconduct may exist when there is no Bankruptcy Code remedy, but such state-law remedies will not often be available. There is no indication that such remedies were available in Law. Of course, the Court alluded to the potential of criminal prosecution, which doesn’t compensate the trustee.

Are there effective remedies under these types of facts, when the opportunity for objection to allowance has passed? The Law opinion points to the potential of denial of discharge as a remedy, one that does the trustee little good in a typical case. More importantly, the opinion makes a point at closing to say that the bankruptcy court does have § 105(a), Rule 9011(c)(2), and inherent authority to “impose sanctions for bad-faith litigation conduct,” with such sanctions including reasonable attorney fees and expenses.15 “And because it arises postpetition, a bankruptcy court’s monetary sanction survives the bankruptcy case and is thereafter enforceable through the normal procedures for collecting monetary judgments. See § 727(b).”16

It is not as simple as saying that whether the trustee and/or creditors prevail depends on what they call the remedy, but the concluding portion of Law v. Siegel does send a message: The bankruptcy court lacks authority to create an exemption-surcharge remedy, but the court does have authority to award fees as a sanction, including for litigation misconduct. Fabricating a mortgage to defeat the trustee’s sale of property for the benefit of creditors, or to defeat the trustee’s avoidance of the fraudulent mortgage is surely litigation misconduct. When and how to raise the issue of sanctions for such conduct may be the real issue in future cases.


[1] 571 U.S. ____, 2014 WL 813702 (Mar. 4, 2014).

[2] See Brown, Ahern & MacLean, Bankruptcy Exemption Manual, for in-depth discussion of exemption issues.

[3] 11 U.S.C. § 522 (“An individual debtor may exempt from property of the estate the property listed” under § 522(d) or applicable state law. Often, the choice will be driven by whether the applicable state law has opted out of the § 522(d) exemptions.)

[4] Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003(b).

[5] There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule of timely objection, as seen in Schwab v. Reilly, 130 S.Ct. 2652 (2010), but the Schwab rationale was not an issue in the Law opinion.

[6] 11 U.S.C. § 522(c).

[7] 11 U.S.C. § 522(k).

[8] Latman v. Burdette, 366 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004).

[9] Malley v. Agin, 693 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2012).

[10] In re Scrivner, 535 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1613 (2009).

[11] See Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197 (1988).

[12] Law v. Siegel, 2014 WL 813702, at * 5.

[13] 503 U.S. 638 (1992).

[14] Law v. Siegel, 2014 WL 813702, at * 6.

[15] Law v. Siegel, 2014 WL 813702, at * 8.

[16] Law v. Siegel, 2014 WL 813702, at * 8. Of course, the reference to § 727(b) is of no direct help in Chapter 13 cases, but is unlikely that an appropriate post-petition monetary sanction would be “provided for” in the plan in order to be dischargeable under § 1328(a).


Bill-Brown-colorThe Honorable William Houston Brown retired in 2006 as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, and he had been designated to sit also in the Middle District of Tennessee, Southern District of Florida, Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Kentucky. Judge Brown served a four-year term on the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit from 1999 through 2002. He received his law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was Order of the Coif. Judge Brown is a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute, having served on its Board and Executive Committee, and he is a Fellow in the American College of Bankruptcy. He is the author or co-author of several texts, including Bankruptcy Exemption Manual, 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Legislation with Analysis 1st and 2d editions, Bankruptcy and Domestic Relations Manual, The Law of Debtors and Creditors, as well as bankruptcy form books, all published by Thomson West. He is also a principal contributing editor for Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice 3rd, published by Thomson West. Judge Brown prepares a quarterly update of consumer cases for the Federal Judicial Center, which distributes those materials to all bankruptcy judges, and he is a speaker at the Federal Judicial Center’s annual seminars for bankruptcy judges. He also speaks regularly at seminars throughout the United States, on consumer bankruptcy topics. Judge Brown co-authors Chapter 13 Bankruptcy 4th ed., a digital publication, available at Judge Brown also acts as a mediator in bankruptcy-related disputes, has conducted mock trials, and has testified as an expert witness in bankruptcy court proceedings.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

daryl smith
April 23, 2023
Is there a duty to inform the trustee about changes post-plan confirmation? Yes.  There is an inherent duty for the consumer debtor to update the trustee on any and all material changes, particularly windfalls, post plan confirmation.  In a very recent case, In Re Robinson, the United States Trustee moved to dismiss debtor’s chapter 13 case because the debtor received...
September 20, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debt buyer was debt collector under FDCPA. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Third Circuit that an entity purchasing consumer debts qualified as a debt collector under the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6), even though it outsourced the actual debt collection activity. McAdory v. M.N.S. & Assoc., LLC, 952 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir....
March 29, 2020
BULLETIN SMALL BUSINESS REORGANIZATION ACT POSTSCRIPT CARES Act Passed by Senate Increases Eligibility to Small Business Debtors with Aggregate Debts Up to $7,500,000 And Other Changes Early last Thursday morning, the Senate passed a substitute for H.R. 748, called the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (the “CARES Act”). The bill passed the House on Friday, and the President...
May 10, 2020
By Professor Nancy Rapoport, University of Nevada Dear Readers: Regina Logsdon has just asked me a great question: In this new world of Zoom, is it okay to record meetings? Video and audio? Permission needed? Does it vary state to state? We are living in a new normal, and video conferencing will continue to be part of our lives even...
February 19, 2023
At the NACTT 2023 Mid-Year Trustee Meeting in January the presentation that resonated the most with me was one about the dark web. The presenter, Mark Lanterman (CTO Computer Forensic Services), said something that haunts me still: your biggest security risk is your people. Mind blown. We spend so much time, energy, and resources on physical security and network security,...
September 29, 2019
By Academy Staff Jan P. Johnson served as a Chapter Standing 13 Trustee for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, from 1998 to September 30, 2019. Prior to this appointment, he served as Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Puerto Rico from 1989 where he was responsible for over 25,000 cases. He was also appointed as Standing...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
Bankruptcy courts lack jurisdiction to apply “innocent spouse” relief to determine the amount of a tax claim to be paid in a Chapter 13 case.  (Taddonio) In re Geary, 2023 WL 2996720 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. April 19, 2023) Case Summary When a taxpayer signs a joint tax return with their spouse, the Internal Revenue Code is very clear.  Both signatories...
June 27, 2021
By Academy Staff Phil was a quiet, humble man. He loved his family, loved the law, and loved to serve others. Philip D. Lamos, age 53 of Painesville Township, passed away suddenly on June 11, 2021. He was a hometown boy who loved his family, especially his son Matthew and daughter Emily. Phil was a graduate of John Carroll University...
January 27, 2019
1/18/19 the Treasury Department and the IRS issued final regulations and three related pieces of guidance, implementing the new qualified business income (QBI) deduction (section 199A deduction). The new QBI deduction, created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) allows many owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, or estates to deduct up to 20 percent of...
April 18, 2021
Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” APPENDIX A 11 U.S.C. § 1328 Discharge (Text added by CAA, effective: December 27, 2020 and subject to one-year sunset, appears in italics.) (Mandatory and precatory directions to the court, critical to the statutory analysis in In re Ritter, appears in bold.) (a) Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion...

Looking to Become a Member? offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.


These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: