after the Petition Date. More over, the Decree does not purport to divest Chrystal of her interest in the Residence immediately. Rather, it states that “[w]hen [Lawrence] ... refinances, [Chrystal] will be responsible for providing a good and sufficient deed as to convey her interest in that property to [Lawrence].” Under the Decree, then, Chrystal retained an interest in the Residence and is not obligated to convey that interest by deed to Lawrence until he refinances — an event that had not occurred as of the Petition Date. Second, Chrystal’s dependents — her children — live at the Residence whenever Lawrence is serving as the residential parent. Residential use by a dependent satisfies the second prong of the exemption. See In re Miller, 157 B.R. 621, 622-23 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1993) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, because Chrystal is realizing
holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights holding that debt orhusband could exempt his interest in home even though he lived elsewhere and even though the home was a residence only for his children and codebtor wife from whom he was separated holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition holding defendant who discharged firearm into empty residence could be convicted of aggravated assault if he acted with intent to cause serious bodily injury to person he believed was in residence even though that person was elsewhere