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 (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 federal and Kansas
state exemptions under Kansas law 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);

In re Footen, 2012 WL 669849 (Bankr.D.Oregon 2012) (Idaho
law did not permit debtors, who were not residents of Idaho, to
use the federal exemptions. Because this rendered them
ineligible for any exemption, they could use the federal
exemptions under the saving clause.)