Filed: Apr. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-15355 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 23, 2009 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-60686-CV-AJ, BKCY No. 07-17750 BKC-JK DENISE J. DUMOULIN, Debtor, _ LESLIE S. OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DENISE J. DUMOULIN, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (April 23, 2009) Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-15355 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 23, 2009 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-60686-CV-AJ, BKCY No. 07-17750 BKC-JK DENISE J. DUMOULIN, Debtor, _ LESLIE S. OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DENISE J. DUMOULIN, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (April 23, 2009) Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA ..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15355 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 23, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-60686-CV-AJ,
BKCY No. 07-17750 BKC-JK
DENISE J. DUMOULIN,
Debtor,
________________________________________
LESLIE S. OSBORNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DENISE J. DUMOULIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 23, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Chapter 222 of the Florida Statutes addresses what real and personal
property a Florida resident may claim as exempt during certain legal proceedings
including bankruptcy. Section 222.25 exempts personal property other than a
homestead.1 In 2007, subparagraph 4 was added to permit a debtor to increase the
amount of personal exemptions “if the debtor does not claim or receive the benefits
of a homestead exemption.” Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4).
In this case, Denise Dumoulin filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition. Although she initially filed a schedule of assets claiming an exemption
for her homestead along with a notice indicating her intent to surrender the
property, she later amended the schedule of assets to remove the homestead
exemption and seek additional personal property exemptions under Fla. Stat.
§ 222.25(4). Trustee Leslie Osborne objected to the additional exemptions on the
ground that Dumoulin was not entitled to claim exemptions under § 222.25(4).
The question presented on appeal is whether a debtor who elects not to claim a
homestead exemption and indicates an intent to surrender the property is entitled to
the additional exemptions for personal property under Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4).
Because this case involves the interpretation of a Florida statute, we certify the
1
Generally, homestead exemptions arise under the Florida Constitution, Art. X, § 4.
2
controlling question to the Florida Supreme Court.
I. Background
The following facts have been stipulated by the parties: Dumoulin filed a
voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, initially claiming a homestead exemption
and listing her other personal property as a car worth $5,925. Dumoulin indicated
that she intended to surrender the homestead property. Dumoulin planned to sell
the home, which was in foreclosure proceedings, and rent it from the purchaser.
The sale, however, later fell through.
After a creditor’s meeting, the trustee demanded Dumoulin remit $4,000 in
assets from personal property that exceeded the allowed exemptions. Dumoulin
then filed an amended schedule of assets removing the homestead exemption and
claiming the majority of the equity in the car as exempt under § 222.25(4). The
trustee filed an objection, arguing that the personal property was not exempt
because Dumoulin had originally claimed the homestead exemption.
The bankruptcy court overruled the objection, citing In re Gatto, 380 B.R. 88
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007). According to the bankruptcy court, because Dumoulin
amended the schedule of assets to remove the homestead exemption and had
indicated her intent to surrender the property, Dumoulin had not “received the
benefit” of the homestead exemption under § 222.25(4) and thus was entitled to
3
additional exemptions.
The trustee appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy
court’s order overruling the objection to the claim of exemption, citing In re Gatto,
In re Hernandez, 2008 WL 1711528 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008) and In re Shoopman,
2008 WL 817109 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008). Considering the term “receives the
benefit” of the homestead exemption, the court concluded that the plain language
of the statute indicated that the debtor was entitled to the additional exemption if
she was not claiming the benefit of a homestead exemption on the date of the
petition. The court further noted that the debtor had consistently indicated an
intent to surrender the property. Although the court adopted a narrow reading of
§ 222.25(4), the court acknowledged that bankruptcy cases provided some support
for the trustee’s interpretation of the statute. The trustee now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
In the bankruptcy context, we sit as a “second court of review” and thus
“examine[] independently the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy
court and employ[] the same standards of review as the district court.” In re
Optical Technologies, Inc., 425 F.3d 1294, 1299-1300 (11th Cir. 2005); In re Issac
Leaseco, Inc.,
389 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Generally, we review legal conclusions by either the bankruptcy court or
4
the district court de novo.2 In re Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc., 309 F.3d
1325, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2002).
III. Analysis
The trustee argues that both the terms “claim” and “receive the benefits” in
§ 222.25(4) must be given meaning. According to the trustee, every person who
owns a homestead receives the benefits of that homestead and would be precluded
from claiming the exemption. The trustee explains that the debtor in this case
intended to claim the homestead exemption and then sell the home to someone
who would allow her to rent it and retain possession, thus continuing to receive the
benefits of the homestead. The trustee further explains that the definition of
benefit includes those interests which are never realized. The trustee then argues
that the Florida legislature did not intend to increase exemptions for personal
property of homeowners, as indicated by the legislative history. Finally, the trustee
contends that the district court misunderstood the facts, as there was contradictory
evidence as to whether Dumoulin intended to surrender the property.3
2
Although we generally review factual findings for clear error, In re Financial Federated
Title & Trust, Inc., 309 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002), in this case the parties stipulated to the
facts and the bankruptcy court made no factual findings.
3
The trustee also argues that, if the court is to consider the debtor’s statement of intention,
as it did in this case, the court failed to consider the debtor’s contradictory action of initially
claiming the homestead exemption and ignored the bankruptcy rules limiting the time in which a
debtor can amend the schedule of assets or the statement of intention. Courts have no “discretion
to deny amendments to claims of exemption, unless a showing of bad faith by the debtor or
prejudice to a creditor is made by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Jordan, 332 B.R. 472, 475
5
Section 222.25 exempts personal property other than a homestead, but
allows for an expanded personal property exemption to qualified debtors, i.e., those
who did not claim any homestead exemption. Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4).
“The intent of the statute appears to be to give a debtor who lacks homestead
protections some extra personal exemptions.” In re Rogers, 396 B.R. 100, 102
(M.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Proposed Amendment to Personal Property Exemption
Statute Fla. Stat. § 222.25, Bankruptcy/UCC Comm. Business and Law Section,
Florida Bar (August 6, 2006)). “The purpose of these extra exemptions is to give a
person who lacks a homestead a minimal amount of property from which to restart
their lives.” Id.; In re Morales,
381 B.R. 917, 921 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.2008).
Under the terms of the statute, the extra exemptions are not available to
debtors who either (1) claim a homestead exemption under the Florida
Constitution, or (2) receive the benefits of a homestead exemption under the
Florida Constitution. Rogers, 396 B.R. at 102-03. The second clause applies to
debtors who do not affirmatively claim a homestead exemption. The statute
prevents such debtors from claiming the additional personal property exemption if
they indirectly “receive the benefits of” the homestead exemption. Id.; In re Gatto,
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005) (citing Doan v. Hudgins (In re Doan),
672 F.2d 831, 833 (11th Cir. 1982);
In re Talmo,
185 B.R. 637, 645 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1995)). Here, there is no claim that the debtor
acted in bad faith in amending her schedules or that any creditor has been prejudiced. Thus,
trustee’s argument regarding the timeliness of the amended schedules is without merit.
6
380 B.R. at 92. Thus, the issue is what constitutes “receiving the benefits” of the
homestead exemption.
Bankruptcy courts have concluded that the debtor does not “receive the
benefits of a homestead exemption” if (1) she does not claim her home as exempt
on the bankruptcy schedules, and (2) she timely and effectively makes a statement
showing the clear intention to abandon or surrender the property. In re Rogers,
369 B.R. at 103 (interpreting § 222.25(4) to allow an additional exemption but
concluding that debtor was not entitled to further exemption because he had not
indicated his intent to surrender the property); In re
Morales, 381 B.R. at 923; In re
Martias,
2008 WL 906776 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008) (concluding that the debtor was
entitled to the exemption under § 222.25(4) where she did not claim her homestead
as exempt and she stated her intention to surrender the home on amended
schedules); In re Shoopman,
2008 WL 817109 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008) (holding
that the statutory language was plain and unambiguous and the debtor was entitled
to the exemption under § 222.25(4) where he consented to relief from the stay and
filed an amended Statement of Intention indicating his intent to surrender the
home); In re
Gatto, 380 B.R. at 93 (explaining that the debtors were entitled to the
exemption under § 222.25(4) where they elected to surrender their home).
The trustee’s interpretation of the statute, however, finds some support on
7
other bankruptcy court decisions, as the district court itself noted. See In re
Franzese, 383 B.R. 197 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2008) (concluding that § 222.25(4) bars
debtor who could have claimed a homestead exemption from exempting personal
property). See also In re Magelitz,
386 B.R. 879, 883 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2008)
(stating that “[a]dmittedly where a homestead has been acquired it can be waived
only by abandonment or by alienation in the manner provided by law” and that
because the debtor owned the home, lived in it, and intended to continue to reside
there, the property has homestead status under Florida law and therefore receives
constitutional protection from creditors regardless of whether the debtor claimed a
homestead exemption during bankruptcy proceedings).
Because this case presents an interpretation of a Florida statute, we certify
the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
IV. Question Certified
We respectfully certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question:
Whether a debtor who elects not to claim a homestead exemption and
indicates an intent to surrender the property is entitled to the additional exemptions
for personal property under Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4).
In certifying this question, we do not intend to restrict the issues considered
by the state court and note that discretion to examine this issue and other relevant
8
issues lies with the Florida Supreme Court. Stevens v. Battelle Memorial Institute,
488 F.3d 896, 904 (11th Cir. 2007); Miller v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.,
410 F.3d 678,
682 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Our phrasing of the certified question is merely suggestive
and does not in any way restrict the scope of the inquiry by the Supreme Court of
Florida.”). We also recognize that “latitude extends to the Supreme Court’s
restatement of the issue or issues and the manner in which the answers are given.”
Swire Pacific Holdings Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.,
284 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11th Cir.
2002) (citation omitted).
QUESTION CERTIFIED.
9
