Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10145056
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Re: Conwell Ponath v. Jill Ford
No. 10145056 · Decided October 17, 2024
No. 10145056·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 17, 2024
Citation
No. 10145056
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
OCT 17 2024
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CONWELL O. PONATH; CHERYL No. 23-15833
J. PONATH,
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01523-DLR
Debtors.
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
CONWELL O. PONATH; CHERYL J.
PONATH,
Appellants,
v.
JILL H. FORD,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 3, 2024**
Phoenix, Arizona
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: HAWKINS, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Conwell and Cheryl Ponath, two Chapter 7 debtors, appeal the district court’s
affirmance of a bankruptcy-court order limiting their homestead exemption to the
value of their home equity at the time of filing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and review determinations regarding the scope of bankruptcy
exemptions de novo. Wilson v. Rigby, 909 F.3d 306, 308 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The Bankruptcy Code permits debtors to exempt from the estate in bankruptcy
certain property as provided under state law. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A). Arizona
law allows exemption of “a homestead . . . not exceeding $250,000 in value.” Ariz.
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1101(A). It further provides that “[t]he value as specified in
this section refers to the equity of a single person or married couple.” Id. § 33-
1001(B). In doing so, Arizona law expressly ties the amount that a debtor may
exempt to the value of her home equity.
“A debtor’s exemptions have long been fixed at the date of the filing of the
bankruptcy petition.” Wilson, 909 F.3d at 308 (cleaned up). In states like Arizona,
which tie the value of the homestead exemption to home equity, that value cannot
exceed the home equity as of the petition date, even if the home appreciates
thereafter. See id. at 309–11.
2
Because Arizona law ties the value of the homestead exemption to the debtor’s
equity in the home, we hold that the Ponaths’ exemption is limited to the value of
their home equity as of January 18, 2022, the date they filed the bankruptcy petition.1
The bankruptcy judge determined that that value was “approximately $114,000.”
Neither party contests that valuation as accurately reflecting the equity the Ponath’s
had in the home on the relevant date. The bankruptcy court properly applied the law
as articulated in Wilson, and the district court was right to affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1
Nothing in our decision in In re Gebhart, 621 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010), is to the
contrary. Notwithstanding our acknowledgement of certain affinities between
California and Arizona exemptions schemes in that case, we did not address post-
petition appreciation of a debtor’s homestead exemption because that debtor was not
claiming it. See id. at 1211. To the extent that Gebhart held anyone was entitled to
such appreciation, it was the creditors. Id. (“A number of our cases have held that,
under the California exemption scheme, the estate is entitled to postpetition
appreciation in the value of property a portion of which is otherwise exempt.”
(emphasis added)).
3
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 17 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 17 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
02Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 3, 2024** Phoenix, Arizona * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
03** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
04Conwell and Cheryl Ponath, two Chapter 7 debtors, appeal the district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy-court order limiting their homestead exemption to the value of their home equity at the time of filing.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 17 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for In Re: Conwell Ponath v. Jill Ford in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 17, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10145056 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.