as in the present cases, the debtors have not claimed the entire amount of their interests in property exempt but instead have claimed a precise value amount of their interests exempt. See In re Shoemaker, 155 B.R. at 555. Id. at 60 (footnote omitted). The district court concluded that: Taylor simply does not address whether a debtor’s valuation of property becomes conclusive in the absence of a timely objection pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(i) and Rule 4003(b). A number of courts have addressed this issue, however. Some courts have concluded that no challenge to the value of the property may be asserted after the period for objections to a debtor’s exemptions has expired. See In re Okoinyan, 135 B.R. 691 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1991); cf. In re Wiesner, 39 B.R. 963, 965 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1984) (<HOLDING>) (citing In re Walsh, 5 B.R. 239
holding that in computing time to determine whether an act was performed within a specified period of time under the statute of limitations the first day is excluded and the last day of the period is included recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack holding that bill of review brought in wrong court constitutes collateral attack holding that a collateral attack on exemptions by means of an application for appraisal outside the court ordered fifteen day period for objections is barred recognizing collateral attack on void order