HAVOCO OF AMERICA, LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ELMER C. HILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
BIRCH, Circuit Judge: In Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F. 3d 1135 (11th Cir.1999), we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida: Does Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution exempt a Florida homestead, where the debtor acquired the homestead using non-exempt funds with the specific intent of hindering, delaying, or defrauding creditors in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.105 or Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30? Id. at 1144.
After a thorough review of the question, the Supreme Court of Florida issued the following opinion: [W]e conclude that we must answer the certified question in the affirmative. The transfer of nonexempt assets into an exempt homestead with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is not one of the three exceptions to the homestead exemption provided in article X, section 4. Nor can we reasonably extend our equitable lien jurisprudence to except such conduct from the exemption’s protection. We have invoked equitable principles to reach beyond the literal language of the excepts only where funds obtained through fraud or egregious conduct were used to invest in, purchase, or improve the homestead. Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.2001).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s holding that Hill’s purchase of a home with non-exempt funds, made with the intent to hinder creditors, does not overcome the Florida homestead exception.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Speed DRY, Inc. v. Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…press a charging lien on insurance proceeds for damage to a homestead property. The court liberally, “in the interest of the family home.” See Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So. 2d 1018, 1021 (Fla. 2001), opinion after certified question answered, 255 F. 3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001). Anchor’s construction of “alienate” is not consistent with this principle. 5 explained that the insurance proceeds had the same protections as the damaged homestead property and were thus exempt from the claims of creditors pursuan…
-
In re Chauncey v. Dzikowski, 454 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006)…equitable principles to reach beyond the literal language of the excepts only where funds obtained through fraud or egregious conduct were used to invest in, purchase, or improve the homestead.” Id. We later affirmed. Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 255 F. 3d 1321, 1322 (11th Cir.2001). Under Havoco, Chauncey’s actions do not warrant the imposition of an equitable lien upon her homestead. She obtained funds, not through fraud, but by instituting a personal injury action against Eclipse, and received a settl…
-
Van Buren Indus. Invs. v. Henderson (In Re Henderson), 341 B.R. 783 (M.D. Fla. 2006)…rnal Revenue Service for unpaid taxes and for unpaid property taxes.” (Doc. # 45, ¶ 3). It is clear that the debtor’s homestead is exempt property, even given the conduct which appellants find so offensive. See Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 255 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.2001), relying upon Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So.2d 1018 (Fla.2001). (2) As to the non-exempt property, Henderson essentially paid for the ability to retain the specified non-exempt property by virtue of his former wif…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Havoco OF Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2001)
- Havoco OF Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 1999)