These cases conclude that when the applicable state has an
opt-out statute that expressly applies to residents, debtors who
are not residents of that state on the date of filing bankruptcy
may claim the federal exemptions.

In re Camp, 631 F.3d 757 (F.3d 2011) (Debtor, not a resident
of applicable state, Florida, could use federal exemptions
because Florida opt-out provision, by its plain terms, applied
only to Florida residents);

In re Townsend, 2012 WL 112995 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2012)
(Debtors who are not residents of Oklahoma on the date of
filing bankruptcy may choose the federal exemptions because
Oklahoma's opt-out statute does not apply to them);

In re Long, 470 B.R. 186 (Bank. D. Kan. 2012) (Debtor who is
not Nebraska resident may use federal exemptions because
Nebraska opt-out statute expressly applies only to cases filed
in Nebraska);

In re Rody, 468 B.R. 384 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2012) (Because
Arizona opt-out statute expressly applies only to Arizona
residents, non-resident may use federal exemptions)

In re Beckwith, 448 B.R. 757 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2011) (Ohio
resident for whom Florida is the applicable state may use
federal exemptions because Florida has expressly limited its
exemptions and federal opt-out statute to residents.);

In re George, 440 B.R. 164, (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. 2010) (Debtor,
nonresident of applicable state, Illinois, whose exemptions
applied only to residents, could use federal exemptions under
the "safe harbor" provision in 11 USC § 522(b)(3) or because
the Illinois opt-out statute applied only Illinois residents};

In re Chandler, 362 B.R. 723 (Bankr. N.D.W.Va.2007)  
(Because applicable state, Georgia, had not opted out for
nonresidents, debtor was eligible for federal exemptions);

In re Battle, 2006 WL 3702734 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2006)  
(Because debtor was not resident of Florida, debtor could not
claim Florida’s exemptions, but Florida’s opt-out statute, which
was expressly limited to residents, did not bar debtor from
claiming federal exemptions);

In re Underwood, 342 B.R. 358 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2006)  
(Because debtor was not a resident of Colorado on date of
filing and Colorado’s exemptions and opt-out statute were
available only to residents, debtor was eligible for federal
exemptions);

In re Schulz, 101 B.R. 301 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1989) (Because
debtor was not Florida resident on date and Florida’s
exemptions and opt-out statute were expressly limited to
residents, debtor was not eligible for state exemptions, but was
entitled to federal exemptions);

In re Volk, 26 B.R. 457 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1983) (Exemptions of
South Dakota were expressly limited to residents and,
therefore, were not available to debtors who were not
residents of South Dakota on date of filing, but debtors were
eligible for federal exemptions because South Dakota’s opt-out
statute was limited to residents);

In re Walley, 9 B.R. 55 (Bankr. S.D. Ala.1981) (Because
Alabama’s exemptions and opt-out statute were expressly
limited to residents and debtor was not a resident of Alabama
on date of filing, Alabama’s opt-out statute did not apply and
she could use the federal exemptions).