the word “impairs” suggests that a lien must actually impair the exempt property at the time the judge renders the decision to avoid. Wilding, on the other hand, essentially argues that § 522(f) applies as long as the lien impaired his interest in property at the time he filed his bankruptcy petition. He relies upon several cases in which courts have held that the debtor need not have an interest in the exempt property at the time the debtor files his motion to avoid to take advantage of § 522(f). See, e.g., Chiu, 304 F.3d at 908-09; In re Orr, 304 B.R. 875, 877 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.2004) (following Chiu); In re Mailhot, 301 B.R. 774, 776 (Bankr.D.R.I.2003) (same); In re Vincent, 260 B.R. 617, 620-21 (Bankr.D.Conn.2000). But see In re Sizemore, 177 B.R. 530, 531 (Bankr.E.D.Ky.1995) (<HOLDING>); In re Vitullo, 60 B.R. 822, 824
holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate holding that the debtor must have had an interest in the property before the lien attached to take advantage of  522f holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding that debtor cannot take advantage of  522f after debtor has transferred his exempt property holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default