Havoco of America v. Hill

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.