With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Michigan law has never allowed this. Claiming as exempt a property interest created through the Debtor’s fraudulent conduct constitutes “fraudulently asserting” the claim of exemption. Plaintiffs Brief (EOF No. 54) at p.2. As-, suming success on this argument, the Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its conclusion that recovery under § 550 is not available. In 2008, Rule 4003 was amended to provide a longer deadline for objecting to exemptions “if the debtor fraudulently asserted the claim of exemption.” See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003(b)(2) (as amended effective Dec. 1, 2008). Although the amendment has been in effect for nearly ten years, case law interpreting the rule is “scant.” Whatley v. Stijakovich-Santilli (In re Stijakovich-Santilli), 542 B.R. 245, 255 (9th Cir. BAP 2015) (<HOLDING>). First, it is worth noting that Rule

A: holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3
B: holding that the objector must not only show that the facts do not support the exemption but must also prove that the debtor knowingly deceived the trustee and the creditors at the time the exemption was made
C: holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony
D: holding that a debtors technically incorrect exemption in a wrongful death claim based on west virginias homestead exemption stands as claimed because the trustee did not object to the exemption in time
B.