context: . Of the decisions interpreting similar state statutes, only two courts have considered allowing a debtor's future intent to use property as a residence to satisfy the "uses as a residence" requirement.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 192 B.R. 584, 588
citation_a.parenthetical: denying exemption for debtors who owned undeveloped land -- on which they had made limited preparations for building -- because they had not shown the intent or meaningful ability to occupy the property within the past ten years
citation_a.sentence: See In re Bennett, 192 B.R. 584, 588 (Bankr.D.Me.1996) (denying exemption for debtors who owned undeveloped land — on which they had made limited preparations for building — because they had not shown the intent or meaningful ability to occupy the property within the past ten years); see also In re Cole, 185 B.R. 95, 98 (Bankr.D.Me.1995) (denying exemption when debtor installed a septic system and had neither shown a definable intention to move onto the land nor a plan to acquire or build a physical structure in which to live). In each case however, the courts declined to do so.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 185 B.R. 95, 98
citation_b.parenthetical: denying exemption when debtor installed a septic system and had neither shown a definable intention to move onto the land nor a plan to acquire or build a physical structure in which to live
citation_b.sentence: See In re Bennett, 192 B.R. 584, 588 (Bankr.D.Me.1996) (denying exemption for debtors who owned undeveloped land — on which they had made limited preparations for building — because they had not shown the intent or meaningful ability to occupy the property within the past ten years); see also In re Cole, 185 B.R. 95, 98 (Bankr.D.Me.1995) (denying exemption when debtor installed a septic system and had neither shown a definable intention to move onto the land nor a plan to acquire or build a physical structure in which to live). In each case however, the courts declined to do so.