South Carolina has opted out of the federal exemptions for all
debtors, regardless of residency. “No individual may exempt
from the property of the estate in any bankruptcy proceeding
the property specified in 11 U.S.C. Section 522(d) except as
may be expressly permitted by this chapter or by other
provisions of law of this State.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-41-35.
As South Carolina's state exemptions also are limited to use by
domiciliaries, nondomiciliaries will use the federal exemptions
under the saving provision in 11 USC § 522(b), which states,
“If the effect of the domiciliary requirement under
subparagraph (A) is to render the debtor ineligible for any
exemption, the debtor may elect to exempt property that is
specified under subsection (d).” In re West, 352 B.R. 905
(Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006) (because debtor was not resident of
Indiana and its exemptions were limited to residents, its
exemptions were not available to her and debtor was eligible
for the federal exemptions under the saving provision); In re
Jewell, 2006 WL 2258363 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2006) (debtors, who
were not residents of Colorado on date of filing were not
eligible for its exemptions because its exemptions were limited
to residents but debtors were eligible for federal exemptions
under the saving provision); In re Crandall, 2006 WL 2051367
(Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006) (because debtor was not domiciled in
New York on the date of filing, and its exemptions were limited
to domiciliaries, debtor was eligible for federal exemptions
under the saving provision); In re Underwood, 342 B.R. 358
(Bankr.N.D.Fla.2006) (savings provision would entitle debtor to
federal exemptions if Colorado’s opt-out applied to her); In re
Robedee, 2007 WL 1576139 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2007) (if
applicable state provides no exemptions to nonresidents, they
may use the federal exemptions under the saving clause); In re
Nickerson, 375 B.R. 869 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2007) (debtors who
are unable to take advantage of state exemptions because
they no longer reside in that state may use the federal
exemptions under the saving provision); In re Fabert, 2008 WL
104104 (Bankr.D.Kan.2008) (debtor fits squarely within the
saving provision because applicable state denies debtor its
exemptions).