may avoid fixing of judicial lien on interest of debtor in property to extent such lien impairs exemption to which debtor would have been entitled); see also In re Stoneking, 225 B.R. 690, 695 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.1998) (if debtor could have avoided lien on community property before acquiring sole ownership, debtor should not lose right to avoid same lien after acquiring sole ownership, otherwise, judgment creditor whose debtor happens to obtain divorce after lien is affixed to community property is fortuitously excluded from scope of § 522(f)(1), while creditor whose debtor remains married is subject to having its lien avoided under that section, and there is no basis in § 522(f)(1) for such distinction); cf. Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U.S. 291, 301, 111 S.Ct. 1825, 114 L.Ed.2d 337 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the
holding even though debtor would have been entitled to iowa homestead exemption but for former spouses iowa code section 59821 lien debtor could not avoid the lien because it attached to the homestead prior to or simultaneously with debtors acquisition of the interest in the homestead holding that the debtor must have had an interest in the property before the lien attached to take advantage of  522f holding that  522f1 requires a debtor to have possessed an interest to which a lien attached before it attached to avoid the fixing of the lien on that interest holding state courts authority under iowa code section 59821 not the lien created there under prevented debtor from claiming the iowa homestead exemption and therefore the debtor could not avoid the lien because the lien did not impair an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled but for the lien holding that debtor could not avoid a judicial lien where after accounting for unavoidable liens and mortgages he had no equity in the property and therefore no interest on which to avoid the judicial lien