does, they certainly fit within the general definition of the term, and at least two courts have similarly held. And, there was no evidence to suggest that the Debtor uses these items is for anything other than domestic purposes, even tho ) (defining “household goods” to include personal property found in a debtor’s residence and necessary to the functioning of a household or normally used by and found in the residence of a debtor, including items which, while not being luxuries, are convenient or useful to a reasonable existence; holding that lawn equipment falls squarely in that definition); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 522.1 l[6][d] ("Courts generally had adopted a broad definition of household goods.... ”). 5 . 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(4). 6 . See, e.g., 4 Collier on Bankru .1999)
holding that although a close call a lawnmower was an appliance under the common use of that word and therefore exempt under as a household appliance under minnesota law holding that an electrical appliance representative and salesperson was not an independent contractor but an employee and as such was entitled to unpaid compensation for accumulated vacation time holding  522f3 inapplicable under minnesota exemption law holding that under minnesota law an insurance policy or provision not filed with the commissioner of insurance is unenforceable holding that under dugger the use of the word recommend under kentucky law did not misstate the jurys role and therefore could not amount to a caldwell violation