dictates the burden to prove that an exemption is not properly claimed is on the objecting party rather than the claiming party. As the objecting party, the Trustee carries the burden of demonstrating that Debtor’s exemption was improperly claimed. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003(c). 5 . See, e.g., Ledee, 772 F.3d at 29 n. 10 (recognizing that the Supreme Court held in Siegel that bankruptcy courts do not have "a general, equitable power ... to deny exemptions based on a debtor’s bad-faith conduct”); Ellmann v. Baker at *8 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2014); In re Gutierrez, No. 12-60444-B-7, 2014 WL 2712503, at *6 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. June 12, 2014); In re Arellano, 517 B.R. 228, 229-32 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2014); In re Scotchel, No. 12-09, 2014 WL 4327947, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. W.Va. Aug. 28, 2014) (<HOLDING>); Neblett v. Gress (In re Gress), 517 B.R. 543,
holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that although district courts have discretion to deny leave to amend they may only do so for a substantial reason holding that after siegel courts no longer have the discretion to deny amended exemptions based upon equitable considerations recognizing courts discretion to deny dismissal if motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to public interest holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds