Havoco of America v. Hill , 197 F.3d 1135 ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                   PUBLISH
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    _______________                       JULY 05, 2001
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    CLERK
    No. 97-2277
    _______________
    D. C. Docket No. 95-30585-CV-RV
    HAVOCO OF AMERICA, LTD.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    ELMER C. HILL,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ______________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Florida
    ______________________________
    (July 5, 2001)
    Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and SMITH*, District Judge.
    _________
    *Honorable C. Lynwood Smith, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting
    by designation.
    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, __ So.2d __ (Fla. June 21, 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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-2277

Citation Numbers: 197 F.3d 1135

Filed Date: 12/10/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/19/2016