appropriately raised pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 actions by the Trustee.” Some courts are reluctant to deny debtors the opportunity to claim exemptions unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, while others have denied improperly claimed exemptions in their entirety. See In re Slentz, 157 B.R. 418, 421 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1993) (denying improper and excessive exemption in its entirety); In re Gaudet, 109 B.R. 548, 550 (Bankr.D.R.1.1989) (“reluctantly” allowing debtor’s original claim of exemptions although bankruptcy schedules were filed eight months after commencement of case, and concluding that “absent a clear showing of bad faith or prejudice, we have no discretion to deny [the debtor] his right to said exemptions”); see also In re Schwarb, 150 B.R. 470, 472 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>). But see Crews v. First Colony Life Ins. Co.
recognizing inherent power of bankruptcy courts to equitably surcharge a debtors exemption to protect integrity of the bankruptcy process and to ensure that debtor does not exempt amount greater than allowed under bankruptcy code holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes holding that the exemption right under  522 is a matter of federal law as to applicability even though the amount and items of exemption are defined and set forth in existing state statutes holding that the debtor had standing to avoid a foreclosure sale under  522 but only to the extent of her 5000 exemption holding that under code  522 the debtors exemption may be denied where there is a finding of fraudulent bankruptcy planning