avoid the transfer “to the extent that the debtor could have exempted such property.” § 522(h). See also § 522(f)(1) (allowing the avoidance of specified liens on a debtor’s property “to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled-”). In short, absent an exemptible interest in transferred property, the debtor would lack prudential standing to assert a § 544(a)(3) cause of action to recover that exemptible interest. See e.g. Humphrey v. Herridge (In re Humphrey), 165 B.R. 578, 580 (Bankr.D.Md.1993) (because the debtor did not have an interest to exempt, the debtor could not bring a § 522(h) claim). In this case, W. Va.Code § 38-10-4(a) provides a $25,000 homestead exemption for an individual Davis), 216 B.R. 898, 903 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1997) (<HOLDING>). As a matter of state law, however, any amount
holding that under code  522 the debtors exemption may be denied where there is a finding of fraudulent bankruptcy planning holding that a chapter 13 debtor had standing to avoid a judgment lien to the extent of her exemption amount but not the entire judgment lien holding that the debtor had standing to avoid a foreclosure sale under  522 but only to the extent of her 5000 exemption holding that the exemption right under  522 is a matter of federal law as to applicability even though the amount and items of exemption are defined and set forth in existing state statutes holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was confirmed by a court