by Patricia Friesinger

If other Courts follow the case of Estate of Beverly Hersh v. Robert Schwartz (2011-OHIO-3994), the answer appears to be a surprising “yes!”  In Schwartz, an unsympathetic debtor (an attorney convicted for his actions in retaining almost $2.5 Million from the Hersh estate) sought to protect paintings and collections that he had acquired that he alleged had sentimental value to him as household goods pursuant to R.C. 2329.66(A)(4)(a). The 1st Appellate District for the State of Ohio, as a matter of first impression, adopted the “functional nexus” test, which requires that “the good is used to support and facilitate daily life within the house.” Citations omitted. The Court went on to say “items that have only sentimental value, such as art, do not support and facilitate daily household living.” Does this mean that a spiteful (or forward-thinking) creditor could hold the wedding photos and children’s memorabilia hostage – with threats to sell it – unless the debtor comes up with a means to pay off a debt? Most sentimental items hold little or no value on the open market, but would hold much more value as a negotiating tool if NO exemption protects them from liquidation.