Matter of Flake, Adv. No. 83-0139.

• Decision Date: 15 September 1983
• Docket Number: Adv. No. 83-0139.
• Citation: 33 BR 275
• Parties: In the Matter of LeRoy J. FLAKE and Connie S. Flake, Debtors. LeRoy J. FLAKE and Connie S. Flake, Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE'S STATE BANK OF MAZOMANIE, Patron's Mercantile Co-Op, Triple S Feeds, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Wisconsin

33 B.R. 275 (1983)

In the Matter of LeRoy J. FLAKE and Connie S. Flake, Debtors LeRoy J. FLAKE and Connie S. Flake, Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE'S STATE BANK OF MAZOMANIE, Patron's Mercantile Co-Op, Triple S Feeds, Inc., Defendants.

Adv. No. 83-0139.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

September 15, 1983.

Rick M. Koeck, Marquardt & Carlson, Ltd., Prairie Du Sac, Wis., James T. Winch, Mazomanie, Wis., for defendants.

Roy N. Fine, Molbreak Law Office, Madison, Wis., for plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ROBERT D. MARTIN, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this adversary proceeding, People's State Bank of Mazomanie and Triple S Feeds, Inc., object to certain of the exemptions claimed by the wife in a joint chapter 7 petition filed by a farming couple. The substance of the creditors' objection is that Mrs. Flake has insufficient ownership interest in the farm implements she claims as exempt to be entitled to avoid liens on the equipment under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). The creditors similarly object to the debtor's claim for exemption of 3 items on the grounds that the implements claimed do not fall within the scope of the Wisconsin exemptions statute.¹

On her schedule of exemptions, Mrs. Flake claimed, inter alia, an "IHC # 46 baler with thrower" under the exemption for "one binder;" a "324 New Idea 2 row corn picker" under the exemption for "one corn binder;" and an "Allied 48' bale elevator" for the exemption of a "hay loader." Upon the testimony of the debtors and expert witnesses for both sides, and the briefs of counsel, I am satisfied that the creditors' objections to the exemptions claimed in the IHC baler, Allied bale elevator and New Idea corn picker must be sustained. The evidence shows that these implements are not in fact the binder, hay loader and corn binder provided for in the Wisconsin exemptions statute. Each of the farm implements identified in the statute was different in character and performed a substantially different function in the harvesting of crops than the implements claimed exempt. There was no evidence presented from which I can find that the modern implements of the debtors are the direct successors in farm operations to the now rarely used implements of the statute.

The arguments concerning the extent of Mrs. Flake's legal interest in the farm implements were considered in the decision denying summary judgment in this proceeding. That decision pointed out the possibility that evidence could be adduced to demonstrate that Mrs. Flake had an ownership interest in the equipment sufficient to support her exemption and therefore allow her to avoid liens on the property claimed as exempt.²

At trial, uncontroverted evidence showed that Mrs. Flake both keeps house and does farm work. She labors in the field alongside her husband, milks cows, and takes full charge of the bookkeeping. She joins in nearly all phases of the farm work. Loans made for and applied to the needs of the farm were made to Mr. and Mrs. Flake jointly. The Flakes considered themselves to be, and were in fact, working together in a common enterprise.

Counsel for People's State Bank has argued ably for the proposition that lien avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(B) ("implements, professional books, or tools") extends no further than a nominal dollar value, irrespective of the absence of such limitation in state law. In so arguing, counsel cites In Re O'Neal, 20 B.R. 13 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Mo.1982) and In Re Yparrea, 16 B.R. 33 (Bkrtcy.D.N.M.1981), both of which appear to impose this limitation. But both these cases are distinguishable from the present situation which arises under Wisconsin law. In Yparrea, so far as the opinion reveals, the New Mexico exemptions statute was general in terms or as interpreted by the courts, extending only to "tools of trade" N.M.S.A. §§ 42-10-1 et seq. (1978). In O'Neal, similarly, the Missouri statute exempted "tools or other mechanical instruments . . ....