IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
|DO NOT PUBLISH
This case disposition has no value as precedent and is not intended for publication. Any publication, either in print or electronically, is contrary to the intent and wishes of the court.
FREDERICK LOPEZ, No. 94-12986
Memorandum of Decision
The debtor has scheduled as an asset in this Chapter 7 case $4,700.00 in accrued vacation
pay, and has claimed the entire amount exempt pursuant to sections 706.050 and 704.070 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. He also claimed that the vacation pay was "not property
of the estate," citing Lines v. Frederick
, 400 U.S. 18 (1970). Now before the court is the
trustee's objection to the claim of exemption.
Whether or not an asset is property of the estate is an entirely different issue from whether
the property is exempt. Nonetheless, since the parties have mixed the issues the court will
decide them both.
The legislative history makes it clear that Congress specifically intended to overrule Lines
when it enacted the Bankruptcy Code. See Matter of Nichols
, 4 B.R. 711, 714 (1980). The
accrued vacation pay is property of the estate.
The debtor has exempted all of the vacation pay and the trustee has objected to the entire
claim; neither position seems to have merit. Both of the statutes relied upon by the debtor limit
his exempt amount to 75% of the total, not the entire amount. Vacation pay is subject to the
same exemption percentage as ordinary pay. Matter of Brissette
, 561 F.2d 779, 786 (9th Cir.
1977); Bernstein v. Richardson
, 34 B.R. 611, 612 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo. 1983).
For the foregoing reasons, the objection to the claim of exemption shall be sustained in part.
The debtor may keep $3,525.00 and shall turn over $1,175.00 to the trustee.
Counsel for the trustee shall submit an appropriate form of order.
Dated: June 4, 1995 _______________________