In re Perry

• Decision Date: 26 September 1980
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. 7-79-00971.
• Citation: 6 BR 263
• Parties: In re Ralph McCall PERRY, Lois Armella Perry, Debtors.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Virginia

6 B.R. 263 (1980)

In re Ralph McCall PERRY, Lois Armella Perry, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 7-79-00971.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia.

September 26, 1980.

Alan T. Gravitt, Legal Aid Society of Roanoke Valley, Roanoke, Va., for debtors.

John R. Patterson, Roanoke, Va., trustee.

H. CLYDE PEARSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The Debtors, Ralph McCall Perry and Lois Armella Perry, filed petitions in this Court pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. Lois A. Perry, Debtor, filed an amendment to her schedules claiming exempt personal clothing among other items of property.

The property claimed exempt here questioned, is a mink coat, stipulated by the parties to have a value of approximately $2,500.00 as an item of personal clothing claimed as such by the Debtor. The Trustee objects to the exemption contending this item of property does not come within the purview of the Virginia Exemption Statute § 34-26 Code of Virginia as amended.¹

The Trustee lays claim to the coat as an asset contending such item is not a "necessary" item of wearing apparel provided in § 34-26(4). The Debtor contends that the coat is a necessary item of wearing apparel and that the General Assembly did not place a value upon wearing apparel.

We first allude to the general rules of construction placed upon exemption statutes. In 31 Am.Jur.2d, Exemptions § 7 with reference to construction of exemption laws it is therein stated:

"since exemptions are strictly creatures of constitutional or statutory provisions, the questions as to when the right exists and the scope of such right, resolve themselves, in the final analysis, into questions of construction. In interpreting exemption laws, the Courts, while keeping in view the purpose for which such laws are enacted, apply the established rules of statutory construction."

In 31 Am.Jur.2nd, Exemptions § 8 the authority states with reference to strict or liberal construction the following:

". . . it is therefore, the almost universal rule that they (exemption statutes) should receive a liberal construction in favor of those intended to be benefited and favorable to the object and purposes of the enactment . . . and where there is doubt as to whether certain property is exempt or not, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the exemption."

Virginia is in accord with the foregoing liberal rule of construction. See Atlantic Life Ins. Co. v. Ring, 167 Va. 121, 187 S.E. 449.

The statute here in question within its own provisions contains several instances of specific limitations prescribed by the Legislature. For example, a clothes dryer not to exceed $150.00 in value. Other specified items are listed as not to exceed "$50.00" or "$25.00". Additionally, a oysterman or fisherman's boat and tackle shall not exceed $1,500.00. Consequently, it would appear that the Legislature intended to fix a value upon items within the statutory scheme of the section itself. It should be noted likewise, that a most recent amendment increasing homestead exemptions from $3,000.00 to $5,000.00, in addition to those exempt items in § 34-26 made no change restricting value of this section. Additionally, ¶ 1(a) was inserted giving exemption of wedding and engagement rings, without limitation.

The statutory language generally exempts "all necessary wearing apparel of the debtor and his family, . . ." The word "necessary" might appear to be a word of limitation requiring the fixing of a value upon the coat in question as a criteria in determining its exempt status. The practical effort of this construction would be to saddle upon a debtor the duty of defending such debtor's poor debtor exemptions from harassing court proceedings by creditors seeking to deprive an improverished debtor of the exemption, the defense of which would be further impoverishing. That certainly is not the intent of the Legislature in setting apart property under § 34-26. See also 106 A.L.R. Pg. 1076 where this reasoning is set forth and a construction encouraging such proceedings condemned.

In the case of Frazier v. Barnum, 19 N.J.Eq. 316, the Court there considered necessary wearing apparel in the nature of an expensive lace shawl of considerable value. In that case, the court ruled that the courts should not indulge in inquiries as to extravagance or bad taste of a debtor's wearing apparel in any consideration relating to its necessity. The court commented that good faith should be a factor. If, as in this case where there is no question of a good faith claim that the coat is a reasonable necessary item of clothing, the value should not govern. The General Assembly could have fixed or set a limitation of one coat for each member of a family. It could have specified one coat of some inexpensive fabric. It has not chosen to do so. As herein mentioned, the Legislature most recently amended this statute providing the exemption of wedding and engagement rings without fixing any limitation.² Indeed, it would be inappropriate to say that a diamond...