[hannah]

In Re Wilding, No. 05-9011 holds that under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), a debtor can avoid a judicial lien if the lien (upon property potentially protected by a homestead exemption) existed at the filing of the bankruptcy petition but was satisfied after the bankruptcy case closed and before the debtor filed a motion to avoid. It seems that the debtor inadvertently listed a secured debt as unsecured, and after the case was closed, he refinanced the property, satisfied the debt, and filed a motion to re-open, seeking to take advantage of 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). The bank, however argued that since the lien no longer exists, he can’t avoid it. But the First sides with the debtor, and after analyzing the grammar of the statute, holds that what matters is whether the lien existed at the time the debt applied. Since it is unclear what all the fuss is about, the court remands to allow the creditor to assert equitable defenses, because the court would be using its power to issue an order nunc pro tunc.