Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
92. Which of the following is the man's best argument?
Following these amendments, a man moved to the state and purchased a home. Six months later, a creditor obtained a judgment against the man for negligently causing a car accident. The creditor now seeks to execute the judgment against the man's home, but the man has responded that he is entitled to the generally applicable debtor's home exemption under state law.
A state's law prohibited the execution of a judgment against a debtor's home. After the federal amendment, the state amended its law «to conform with the federal bankruptcy amendments,» making the debtor's home exemption unavailable to any person who had established permanent residency in the state less than two years before entry of the judgment.
Congress amended the federal bankruptcy statute to allow states to exempt a debtor's home from judgment creditors, so long as the debtor had established permanent residency in the state at least two years before entry of the judgment. The two-year residency requirement was intended to prevent debtors from defrauding creditors by moving to a state solely to take advantage of a favorable home-exemption law.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. Federal law does not regulate automobile negligence. Federal law does, however, regulate bankruptcy proceedings, which are within Congress's power to legislate through Article I of the US Constitution.
B is incorrect. The federal statute does not violate the no-commandeering principle. Here, it authorizes rather than requires states to create durational residency requirements.
D is incorrect. The proper standard of review of a durational residency requirement is strict judicial scrutiny. Here, the durational residency requirement burdens the fundamental right to travel. Therefore, the State must demonstrate that the requirement is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.