Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homestead Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to let married homeowners each claim $175,000 homestead exemption
Summary
The Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee voted to send House Bill 282 to the fourteenth order for possible amendment after hearing that the bill would allow married owners to each claim the $175,000 homestead exemption and asked to remove a separate bankruptcy-related change.
The Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee voted to send House Bill 282 to the fourteenth order of business for possible amendment after hearing testimony that the bill would let married homeowners each claim a $175,000 homestead exemption.
Representative Lance Clow, District 25 of Twin Falls, introduced the bill and said it concerns the homestead exemption — a statutory protection that shields a portion of a homeowner’s equity from involuntary liens — rather than a tax exemption. “This is a homeowner’s homestead exemption that protects your home from involuntary liens,” Clow said.
Alexandra Cavall, a lawyer from District 24 who described herself as a bankruptcy attorney, told the committee that current Idaho law treats the homestead exemption as a shared benefit for married couples while other exemptions (for vehicles, firearms and the like) are applied individually. Cavall said the bill would change Idaho Code section 55-1002 to permit married owners to claim the exemption on an individual basis so that two owners, married or not, could each claim $175,000 of protection.
Cavall also explained a second provision in the bill that would address a reinvestment requirement in Idaho Code section 55-1008 when property is sold and proceeds are supposed to be reinvested within one year. She said a recent Ninth Circuit decision, identified in testimony as McAllister v. Wells, departs from the traditional bankruptcy “snapshot” rule and can make the one-year reinvestment requirement affect bankruptcy cases where sales occur after filing. “That decision…represents a deviation from what we have traditionally done inside of bankruptcy,” Cavall said, and she described how financing rules can make a one‑year reinvestment impractical for many bankruptcy filers.
Representative Clow said he planned to ask the committee to remove section 2 of the bill — the bankruptcy-related change — from the bill and recommended sending the measure to the fourteenth order so that section could be eliminated in the amending order. Senator Adams moved to send HB 282 to the fourteenth order of business for possible amendment; Senator Berndt seconded. The committee voice-voted in favor. The committee then assigned Senator Adams to carry the bill on the Senate floor.
The committee record shows the bill’s central policy change is limited to how Idaho’s homestead exemption is applied to married owners; the record also indicates members sought to remove the separate bankruptcy provision from the bill rather than adopt it in its present form.
No formal floor passage occurred in committee; the committee action was to advance the bill for possible amendment on the fourteenth order and locate a floor sponsor.
