<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Northern California Bankruptcy LawyerAssets &amp; exemptions | Northern California Bankruptcy Lawyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://california-bankruptcy-lawyer.com/category/assets-exemptions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://california-bankruptcy-lawyer.com</link>
	<description>On The Bankruptcy Soapbox</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:03:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>California Exemptions May Increase</title>
		<link>http://california-bankruptcy-lawyer.com/california-exemptions-may-increase/</link>
		<comments>http://california-bankruptcy-lawyer.com/california-exemptions-may-increase/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:35:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cathy Moran</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Assets & exemptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developing law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moranlaw.net/blog/?p=707</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Californians may enjoy an increase in the exemption for a principal residence and compensating increases in the exemptions available under CCP 703 to Californians filing bankruptcy.? The bill under consideration , AB 929, will not, however, increase the wildcard, or grubstake, exemption in the CCP 703 scheme. A bill to again revise California Exemptions, introduced...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Californians may enjoy an increase in the exemption for a principal residence and compensating increases in the exemptions available under CCP 703 to Californians filing bankruptcy.? The bill under consideration , <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_929&amp;sess=CUR&amp;house=B&amp;author=wieckowski" target="_blank">AB 929</a>, will not, however, increase the wildcard, or grubstake, exemption in the CCP 703 scheme.</p>
<blockquote><p>A bill to again revise California Exemptions, introduced by  Assembly Member Wieckowski, has recently passed the Assembly without opposition  and is now in the Senate.? On June 14, 2011 the bill was favorably reported out  of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is slated to be taken up by the Senate  Appropriations Committee within the next few weeks.? It appears to be on a fast  track.<br />
The stated purpose of the bill is as follows:</p>
<p><em>This bill would revise and recast those alternative  exemption provisions and would, among other things, increase the exemption  available for the debtor&#8217;s interest in motor vehicles; jewelry, heirlooms, and  works of art; and tools and other items used in the debtor&#8217;s trade, business, or  profession or in the trade, business, or profession of the debtor&#8217;s spouse. The  bill would revise the alternative exemption provisions relating to household  furnishings, life insurance contracts, wrongful death and personal injury  actions, unemployment compensation payments, and cemetery plots and would add to  those alternative exemption provisions exemptions for workers&#8217; compensation  benefits, specified aid payments and relocation benefits, and financial aid for  higher education.</em></p>
<p><em>Existing law provides an exemption from enforcement  of a money judgment for a homestead, as defined, in specified  amounts.</em></p>
<p>With regard to the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">homestead exemption</span> in CCP section  704.730, the bill results in the increase in the exemption amounts as  follows:</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="213" valign="top">Current Law</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">Proposed Change</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Individual</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$75,000</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$150,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Family Unit</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$100,000</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$250,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Over 65/Disabled/Low Income</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$175,000</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$350,000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The bill also increases the maximum income allowed to qualify  for the low income homestead exemption for people from $15,000 to $22,000 for an  individual and $20,000 to $29,000 for a married couple.</p>
<p>With regard to the exemptions applicable if no homestead is  claimed,? CCP section 703.104(b), the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">bill does not increase</span> the  wildcard, per se, but <span style="text-decoration: underline;">does increase</span> other provisions and also creates new  exemptions such that the total amount exemptible has now increased  substantially.? .? The stated purpose of these amendments is to conform the CCP  Section 703.140(b) exemptions to the CCP Section 704.010 <em>et seq.</em> exemptions to protect those without homes in the event they file for bankruptcy  protection.?? While the language of the changes to the CCP Section 703.140(b)  exemptions would appear to parallel the CCP Section 704.010 <em>et seq.</em> exemptions, the amounts are not the same. ?The exemptions available under CCP  Section 703.140(b) are substantially higher than those in CCP Section 704.010 et  seq.</p>
<p>For example, a burial plot which previously was included under  CCP section 703.140(b)(1) now has its own separate section, new CCP section  703.140(b)(17) and is exempt without regard to value.</p>
<p>A chart of certain of the increases follows:</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Property Exempt</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">Current Law</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">Proposed Change</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Vehicles</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$3,525 (one vehicle only)</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$4,800 of aggregate equity</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Jewelry, heirlooms and works of art</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$1,425</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Tools of the Trade</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$2,200</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$6,075 (and if married both spouses entitled to claim  exemption)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Unmatured life insurance including annuities but not the loan  value</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$11,800</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">unlimited</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Loan value of unmatured life insurance</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">included in $11,800 above</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$9,700 (and if married both spouses entitled to claim  exemption)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="206" valign="top">Personal Injury</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">$22,075 (for actual pecuniary loss)</td>
<td width="213" valign="top">unlimited</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The Bill will result in a reduction in the  number of bankruptcy cases administered with assets.? In other words, Debtors,  without homes to protect in Chapter 7 bankruptcies, will be able to protect more  assets.? Summary by Elissa Miller of Sulmeyer, Kupetz, PC in LA.</p></blockquote>
<p>These changes are proposed, not passed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://california-bankruptcy-lawyer.com/california-exemptions-may-increase/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

