Hawk v. Engelhart (In Re Hawk)
871 F.3d 287 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, property that is properly claimed as exempt and not subject to a timely objection is permanently withdrawn from the bankruptcy estate. A debtor's subsequent conversion of that exempt property into a non-exempt form does not bring the new asset back into the estate.
Facts:
- Gregory and Marcie Hawk held funds in an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).
- On December 15, 2013, the Hawks filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
- At the time of the bankruptcy filing, the funds were held in the IRA, which qualified for an exemption under Texas law.
- Between December 2013 and July 2014, the Hawks withdrew all the funds from the IRA.
- The Hawks used the withdrawn funds for living expenses and other personal uses.
- The Hawks failed to deposit the withdrawn funds into another qualifying retirement account within the 60-day period required by Texas law to maintain the funds' exempt status.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory and Marcie Hawk filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
- The Trustee, Eva Engelhart, filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to compel the Hawks to turn over the funds they had withdrawn from their IRA.
- The bankruptcy court granted the Trustee's motion, concluding the funds had lost their exempt status.
- The Hawks, as appellants, appealed the bankruptcy court's order to the U.S. District Court.
- The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision.
- The Hawks, as appellants, then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, does a debtor's properly exempted Individual Retirement Account (IRA) lose its exempt status and become property of the bankruptcy estate if the debtor subsequently withdraws the funds and fails to roll them over into another qualifying account within the time limit prescribed by state law?
Opinions:
Majority - Prado, J.
No. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, once property is properly exempted and the time for objections has passed, it is permanently removed from the estate and does not re-enter the estate even if it subsequently changes into a non-exempt form. The court reasoned that Chapter 7 bankruptcy is governed by the 'snapshot rule,' which assesses exemptions based on the facts and law existing on the date the bankruptcy petition is filed. At the time the Hawks filed, the IRA was unconditionally exempt. Because no party in interest filed a timely objection, the exemption became final under 11 U.S.C. § 522(l) and the Supreme Court's holding in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz. When the Hawks withdrew the funds, they acquired a new property interest (cash), but unlike in Chapter 13 which has a specific provision (§ 1306(a)(1)) to capture after-acquired property, Chapter 7 lacks any mechanism to bring this new, post-petition asset back into the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, the funds remained outside the reach of the trustee.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the finality of the 'snapshot rule' and the objection deadline in Chapter 7 bankruptcies, creating a bright-line distinction from Chapter 13 cases. It establishes that once an asset is properly exempted in Chapter 7, its subsequent transformation—even into a non-exempt form—does not allow the trustee to recapture it. This provides certainty for debtors but also highlights a potential 'loophole' where debtors can liquidate exempt assets for personal use post-petition without consequence within the bankruptcy case, a result that differs significantly from the treatment of such actions in a Chapter 13 proceeding.
