Volume 5 Winter 2011 Number 2 - Charleston Law Review

2011] Errors in Judgmentwas nullified. 196V. A SCHWAB-ESPINOSA ANALYSISLess than three months after the United States SupremeCourt issued its ruling in Espinosa, the Court rendered anopinion in Schwab v. Reilly 197 on June 17, 2010, which in somerespects may be construed as dampening the impact of Espinosa.A. Schwab FactsIn Schwab, the debtor, Nadejda Reilly (Reilly) ran a cateringbusiness that led to her filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. 198 Shelisted her assets on Schedule B of the bankruptcy forms, whichincluded an itemized list of business equipment from her cookingbusiness with an estimated market value of $10,718. 199 OnSchedule C, Reilly claimed exemptions of $1,850 under thecategory of “implements, professional books, or tools, of [the]trade” and another $8,868 for equipment under the “wildcard”provision, both totaling $10,718; the same amount as the value ofher equipment on Schedule B. 200 In neither exemption categorydid she exceed the amount allowable within that exemptioncategory. 201 Before the completion of the meeting of creditors, anappraiser informed the Chapter 7 trustee, William G. Schwab,that the estimated value of the equipment was no less than$17,000. 202 Furthermore, during the meeting of creditors,Schwab informed Reilly of his intentions to sell her businessequipment, which Reilly vehemently protested. 203Rule 4003(b)(1) gives the trustee thirty days from theconclusion of the meeting of creditors to file any objections to196. Id. at 575.197. 560 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2652 (2010).198. Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2652, 2657 (2010).199. Id.200. Id. at ___, 130 S Ct. at 2657–58.201. Id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 2657.202. Id. at ___, 130 S. Ct at 2671 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).203. Id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. 2671 n.3.221