Chapter 7 Trustee's Summary Judgment Motion Denied

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Elvis Blazevic and Nicole Lynn Leigh Blazevic

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-60723

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (33.1K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

In re: Case No. 25-60723

Elvis Blazevic,
Nicole Lynn Leigh Blazevic, Chapter 7

Debtors.

ORDER DENYING CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case came before the Court on the Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion Objecting to a Claimed
Exemption. ECF No. 17. The Debtors filed a response. ECF No. 20. On February 4, 2026, the
Court held an initial hearing on the motion. Audio at ECF No. 24. The Court also heard arguments
on February 11, 2026. Audio at ECF No. 26. At both hearings, Gene Doeling appeared as the
Chapter 7 Trustee, and Sarah Juberian appeared for the Debtors.
The Trustee objects to the Debtors’ claimed exemption of an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”)
under Minnesota Statutes Section 550.37, subdivision 27. This subdivision allows debtors to
exempt their “aggregate interest, not to exceed $3,000, in household tools and equipment,
including but not limited to hand and power tools, snow removal equipment, and lawnmowers.” Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 27. The Debtors claim to use the ATV exclusively for snow removal.
ECF No. 20 at 2, 5. The ATV has a plow attachment, which the Debtors claim is never removed.
ECF No. 20 at 2, 11. Therefore, the Debtors argue that the ATV qualifies as snow removal
equipment and may be exempted under Subdivision 27.
The Trustee concedes that the plow attached to the ATV is snow removal equipment. ECF
No. 24 at 01:25–35. However, the Trustee argues the ATV itself cannot qualify as snow removal
equipment. ECF No. 24 at 01:34–02:58. The Trustee makes two primary arguments.
First, the Trustee argues that ATVs are motor vehicles and, thus, cannot be exempted as
household tools or equipment. ECF No. 26 at 05:27–11:12; cf. § 550.37, subd. 12a. Second, the
Trustee argues that the purpose of an ATV, and not how the Debtors use this particular ATV,
determines whether an ATV is a household tool or equipment. ECF No. 26 at 20:00–56; 24:04–58;

25:41–26:12. The Trustee asserts that ATVs are meant for recreation and, thus, can never be
exempted under Subdivision 27. ECF No. 26 at 10:50–12:04; 20:30–21:10; 25:00–41.
In contrast, the Debtors argue it does not matter that an ATV is a motor vehicle so long as
this particular ATV is used as a household tool or equipment. ECF No. 26 at 26:58–27:50. The
Debtors argue the proper inquiry is how these Debtors use this ATV and not whether ATVs as a
whole have other potential uses. ECF No. 26 at 00:30–3:55; 06:50–07:28; 19:00–49; 20:56–22:15;
26:18–58; 27:50–28:20. As the Court noted on the record, the inquiry then would focus on the
factual question of how the Debtors use this ATV. ECF No. 24 at 08:00–50.
The Court elected (and the parties agreed) to treat the Trustee’s motion as a motion for
summary judgment on which no additional briefing was necessary. ECF No. 24 at 09:28–11:25.

The Court took the matter under advisement. ECF No. 24 at 11:25–29.
The proper interpretation of Section 550.37, Subdivision 27 appears to be an issue of first
impression. As the Court will explain, this dispute raises genuine issues of material fact on which
an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Therefore, the Court denies summary judgment.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014 and 7056 make Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 apply to contested matters. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate where
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)). Summary judgment is inappropriate “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248. “[T]he Court views the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party and allows that party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Woodall, 975 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Prudential Ins. Co. v. Hinkel, 121 F.3d 364, 366 (8th Cir. 1997)).
DISCUSSION
Within the summary judgment framework, the Trustee’s arguments are as follows. First,
Subdivision 27 does not expressly include motor vehicles. Therefore, the Trustee is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because the Debtors concede the ATV is a motor vehicle. Second,
even if Subdivision 27 can include motor vehicles, an ATV can never be a household tool or
equipment because ATVs are designed for recreation. Therefore, how the Debtors claim to use
their ATV does not create a material fact issue. Both arguments fail.
I. Motor Vehicles May Be Exempted Under Subdivisions That Do Not
Expressly Include Motor Vehicles.

A judge in this district has previously concluded that a motor vehicle may be exempted
under subdivisions that do not specifically mention motor vehicles. In In re Smith, a truck driver
sought to exempt a semi-truck cab as a tool of his trade under Subdivision 6 of the Minnesota
exemption statute. 68 B.R. 581, 582 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1986). Subdivision 6 permitted the
exemption of certain items reasonably necessary in the debtor’s trade, profession, or business. Id. However, Subdivision 6 made no mention of motor vehicles. See Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 6
(1986). The chapter 7 trustee objected and argued that the truck was a motor vehicle and, thus,
categorically did not fall within the trade exemption (citing two unpublished decisions where the
court had disallowed trade exemptions of motor vehicles). Id. at 582–83.
The court rejected the trustee’s argument, distinguished the unpublished decisions, and
concluded that whether a motor vehicle fell within the trade exemption depended upon the facts
of each case. Id. at 583. The court permitted the truck driver to exempt the semi-truck cab as
reasonably necessary in his trade because “[a] trucker cannot truck without a truck.” Id. at 584.

The court also noted that tractors are motor vehicles and are frequently exempted as farm machines
under Subdivision 5 of the same statute. Id. at 584 n.7. The court added: “[t]he fact that some
motor vehicles are treated differently than others in various non-exemption statutes for licensing,
regulatory and tax purposes is irrelevant.” Id. The Court finds Smith persuasive. The existence of a separate motor vehicle exemption
does not preclude the exemption of motor vehicles under other subdivisions in appropriate cases.
Smith, 68 B.R. at 583, 583 n.5; see Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 12a. For example, pickup trucks
and gators—which are motor vehicles—have been exempted as farm machines or implements. In
re Miller, 370 B.R. 914, 916 n.2, 917–19 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2007). Tractors are also motor vehicles,
and a judge in this district has previously concluded that a tractor “is clearly a farm implement or

machine.” In re Peters, 60 B.R. 711, 714–15 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1986). The facts of each case should
be considered to determine whether a given motor vehicle can be exempted under a subdivision
other than the motor vehicle exemption in Subdivision 12a. (To the extent the Trustee argues motor
vehicles may be exempted only under Subdivision 12a, the motor vehicle exemption, the Trustee’s
argument fails for the same reasons.)
Therefore, the Debtors’ concession that the ATV is a motor vehicle does not entitle the
Trustee to judgment as a matter of law. The remaining question is whether a reasonable fact finder
could conclude that the ATV at issue is a household tool or equipment under Subdivision 27.
II. The ATV Can Constitute A Household Tool Or Equipment If The Debtors
Primarily Use It As Such.

The Debtors claim the ATV is a household tool or equipment because they use it
exclusively for snow removal. ECF No. 20 at 2, 5. Subdivision 27 allows debtors to exempt their
“aggregate interest, not to exceed $3,000, in household tools and equipment, including but not
limited to hand and power tools, snow removal equipment, and lawnmowers.” Minn. Stat.
§ 550.37, subd. 27 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Debtors argue they can exempt the ATV under
Subdivision 27.
The Trustee argues that an ATV can never be a household tool or equipment under
Subdivision 27 because ATVs are not designed for any such use—they are designed only for
recreation. The Trustee argues the Court should focus on the ATV’s design and purpose—not on
how the Debtors might use it. ECF No. 26 at 20:00–56; 24:04–58; 25:41–26:12. However, the
Court will not assume, without evidence, that ATVs are designed and intended only for recreation.
The Trustee presented no evidence that an ATV’s only purpose is recreational. But, as discussed
below, it does not matter.
A. A Reasonable Fact Finder Could Conclude That The Debtors’ ATV Is A
Household Tool Or Equipment
The Minnesota exemption statute is liberally construed in favor of debtors. De Coster v.
Nenno, 213 N.W. 538, 539 (Minn. 1927); In re Hardy, 787 F.3d 1189, 1192 (8th Cir. 2015). Many
Minnesotans live in rural areas where shoveling a long driveway or using a snowblower is
impractical. Many Minnesotans are elderly, have varying degrees of physical disability, are unable
to use a shovel or a snowblower, or do not have a truck to which a plow can be attached. The
Trustee argues that the plow attachment can be exempted but not the ATV. ECF No. 24 at 01:25–
02:58. However, the plow blade would not be of any use on its own. The Trustee also argues that
the Debtors could hire someone for snow removal. ECF No. 26 at 09:55–10:12. However,
individuals who have just filed for bankruptcy typically would not be financially able to pay for
snow removal services.
Subdivision 27 contains no requirement that exempt household tools or equipment, subject
to the $3,000 limit, must be the cheapest or most common method of accomplishing a given

household task. Here, the Debtors claim to use their ATV exclusively for snow removal. ECF No.
20 at 2, 5. The ATV has a plow attachment. Id. at 11. As stated above, the ATV’s status as a motor
vehicle does not prevent Subdivision 27’s application. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that
such an ATV is a household tool or equipment within the meaning of Subdivision 27. As such,
summary judgment is inappropriate.
The Court is not convinced that the Debtors need to show exclusive use for snow removal
or other household tasks. The Debtors could use the ATV occasionally to visit their neighbors but
still primarily use the ATV as a household tool or equipment. Giving children a ride around one’s
property on a riding lawnmower does not mean the lawnmower is no longer exemptible under
Subdivision 27. Similarly, giving hayrides to children with a tractor does not mean the tractor is

not farm equipment. An exclusive use requirement would be too restrictive, and Subdivision 27
does not contain one. Primary use as a household tool or equipment would suffice under
Subdivision 27.
The Trustee also argues that allowing an ATV used for snow removal to be exempted will
allow debtors to exempt pickup trucks or other items. ECF No. 24 at 01:20–02:58; ECF No. 26 at
12:04–23; 17:07–48. Of course, those issues are not presently before the Court. Nonetheless,
Subdivision 27 includes a $3,000 total limit that will prevent substantial abuse of the exemption,
and an item would have to be used primarily as a household tool or equipment. The Trustee’s real
quarrel is with the Minnesota Legislature using broad language to exempt snow removal
equipment to ensure that Minnesotans are able to leave their homes during the long Minnesota
winter.
Another bankruptcy court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was appropriate when
faced with a very similar issue. In In re Arzola, the debtors lived in a semi-rural area in Idaho. 2003

WL 25273837, at *1 (Bankr. D. Idaho Apr. 10, 2003). The debtors had an ATV they claimed to use
for snow removal in the winter and for weeding, road maintenance, and alfalfa clearing in the
summer. Id. The debtors claimed the ATV was an exempt household good under the Idaho
exemption statute. Id. However, the court’s own precedent, as well as the Idaho legislature, had
defined ATVs as recreational vehicles. Id. at *3. Therefore, the chapter 7 trustee objected and
argued the ATV could not be exempted as a household good because it was primarily designed for
recreation. Id. at *1. The trustee further argued that other exemptions were more appropriate for
an ATV. Id. at *1, *3. There, as here, the court postponed receiving evidence until it had decided
the legal issue under the statute. Id. at *1.
The court decided that the ATV could be a household good if the debtors proved the ATV

“is used primarily to support and facilitate Debtors’ day-to-day lives within their home, including
for maintenance and upkeep of the home itself, and not for recreation.” Id. at *3. The court rejected
any per se rule and concluded the debtors should have an opportunity to offer evidence of the
ATV’s use. Id. The court also observed that a given item might fall within more than one category
of exemptions. Id. Therefore, the court allowed the debtors to schedule an evidentiary hearing on
the trustee’s objection. Id. at *4.
Arzola interpreted a different exemption statute, but the facts and the parties’ arguments
closely resemble those at issue here. The Court agrees that debtors who claim to use an ATV
primarily for household tasks should have an opportunity to prove such use. Of course, the Trustee
will have an opportunity to challenge the Debtors’ factual claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons just stated, the Court denies summary judgment on the Trustee’s Motion

Objecting to a Claimed Exemption. The Court will set an evidentiary hearing to determine whether
the Debtors primarily use the ATV as a household tool or equipment. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Court denies summary judgment on the Trustee’s Motion Objecting to a Claimed
Exemption.
2. The Court will set an evidentiary hearing on whether the Debtors primarily use the ATV
as a household tool or equipment.
s/ William J. Fisher
Dated: M arch 27 , 2026 __________________________
William J. Fisher
United States Bankruptcy Judge