Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Justice Cherry.
In this opinion, the Court answered the following certified question from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit: “[i]n Nevada may a judgment debtor claim exemptions under NRS 21.090 belonging not only to herself, but also to her non-debtor spouse?” The Court noted that, under NRS 21.090 (f) and (z), an individual can exempt one vehicle up to $15,000 in value and up to $1,000 in otherwise non-exempt personal property (the wildcard exemption). However, when a married couple files a joint bankruptcy petition, they may collectively exempt two vehicles and up to $2,000 in otherwise non-exempt personal property. In addressing this question, the Court recognized that whenever a married individual files for bankruptcy and his/her spouse does not join the petition, the bankruptcy estate includes all of the marital community property. Given the inclusion of all marital property in an individual debtor’s bankruptcy estate, the question before the Court was whether the debtor spouse is entitled to utilize the non-debtor spouse’s exemptions set forth in NRS 21.090(f) and (z) to allow for a total exemption of two vehicles and up to $2,000 in otherwise non-exempt personal property. In reviewing an Idaho bankruptcy court decision concerning the same issue and the plain language of the statute which refers only to the “judgment debtor’s equity” in such property, the Court concluded that a debtor in bankruptcy may not utilize his/her non-debtor spouse’s exemptions to exempt additional marital property from the estate. Thus, a married debtor whose spouse does not join in the bankruptcy petition may only exempt one vehicle and up to $1,000 in personal property not otherwise exempt. Based on the foregoing, the Court determined that a debtor is limited to one set of exemptions, as set forth in NRS 21.090, and she may not claim the exemptions belonging to her non-debtor spouse notwithstanding the fact that all marital community property is considered property of the estate. Certified question answered in the negative. (Amanda M. Perach, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.)
