Maryland has opted out of the federal exemptions for all
debtors, regardless of residency. “In any bankruptcy
proceeding, a debtor is not entitled to the federal exemptions
provided by § 522(d) of the federal Bankruptcy Code.” Md.
Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 11-504(g).
If some of Maryland's exemptions are construed as limited to
domiciliaries, nonresidents may be able to 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).” However, they will have to
deal with In re Brooks, 393 B.R. 80 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.2008).
(debtor who was not Maryland resident could not use those
exemptions of that state that were limited to use by residents
and could not use the federal exemptions under the saving
provision in 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(C) which applies only when
none, not some, of the state exemptions are available to the
nonresident debtor). The court in In re Katseanes, 2007 WL
2962637 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2007) similarly held that although the
nonresident debtors could not use Utah’s homestead
exemption, they could not claim the federal exemptions under
the saving provision because “any” in that provision requires
that no exemptions be available before the federal exemptions
can be used. However, the Oregon court in In re Tate, 2007
WL 81835 (Bankr.D.Or.2007), did allow debtors to substitute
the federal homestead exemption for that of Texas because
the latter was not available outside that state. Also see In re
Williams, --- B.R. ---, 2007 WL 1520998 (Bankr.W.D.Ark.2007)
in which the court apparently interprets “any” as not meaning
“all.” So, there is disagreement over the meaning of “any” in
the saving provision.