no active conduct. Rasmussen, 349 B.R. at 757. Consequently, under the equity theory, the appreciation in the value of the Fehmels’ property could be excluded from § 522(p)(1)’s cap, if it were passively acquired. However, the district court concluded that it could affirm the bankruptcy court without formally adopting either the title or equity interpretation, as even under the equity theory, the Fehmels were only entitled to an exemption of $273,750. The court found that the $325,000 appreciation in the value of the Lampasas property was likely attributable to the Fehmels’ active investments improving the property. See Rogers, 513 F.3d at 222 (assuming that equity acquired due to improving property would be subject to cap); In re Presto, 376 B.R. 554, 581-82 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2007) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, since the appreciation in the
holding  he who seeks equity must do equity  holding that the formula in section 522f2a creates equity for purposes of lien avoidance even if debtors otherwise have no equity in the property holding that equity acquired due to improving property is subject to cap holding that tjhere is a strong legal presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value