exemption cannot be determined because Debtor has not estimated the value of his property or the value of the portion of the property listed as a “home site.” At best, Central States’ arguments impact only the extent that its lien may be avoided. They do not show that Debtor would not be entitled to avoid any portion of the lien and, thus, are not a basis for finding that reopening the case in order to file a motion to avoid Central States’ lien would be futile. Reopening as to Sunrise Sunrise, for its part, objects to Debtor’s motion on equitable grounds. It raises the equitable defense of laches, arguing that Debtor’s delay in seeking avoidance of its lien until after his case was closed has resulted in prejudice to Sunrise. See In re Dryja, 320 B.R. 650, 652-53 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2005) (<HOLDING>); In re Tarkington, 301 B.R. at 506-07 (same);
recognizing laches as an equitable defense to a motion to reopen holding that where defense of laches was not pleaded denial of equitable relief on grounds of laches was error holding that laches is an affirmative defense holding that equitable defense of laches is inapplicable to claims of fraud recognizing laches as an affirmative defense