Osborne v. Dumoulin
2011 WL 320986
Fla.2011Background
- Debtor Denise Dumoulin filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition and claimed the homestead under Article X, Sec. 4, Florida Constitution, with intent to surrender the home.
- Trustee demanded $4,000 in assets under Fla. Stat. 222.25(4) after the meeting, seeking the statutory personal property exemption.
- Debtor amended the petition to delete the homestead exemption and newly claim the 222.25(4) exemption; trustee objected.
- Bankruptcy court overruled the trustee's objection, determining the debtor could claim 222.25(4) given surrender intent, and the district court affirmed.
- The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether a debtor with a homestead who does not claim it is entitled to the 222.25(4) exemption.
- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding the debtor must not be receiving the homestead benefits to claim the 222.25(4) exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes 'benefits' of the homestead exemption? | Osborne argues benefits include the homestead's protection from creditors. | Dumoulin contends benefits are broader and may include other tax or ownership advantages. | Benefits are limited to protection from forced sale/levy. |
| Does not claiming the homestead in bankruptcy mean one does not receive its benefits for 222.25(4)? | Osborne contends non-claim can still yield benefits via abandonment-related effects. | Dumoulin argues failure to claim may still satisfy receiving of benefits in some cases. | Negative; not claiming may still qualify for 222.25(4) if benefits are not received. |
| May a debtor with a Florida homestead still be eligible for 222.25(4) without abandoning the home? | Osborne contends abandonment not required to lose benefits and qualify for 222.25(4). | Dumoulin argues continuing to occupy prevents receiving homestead benefits for 222.25(4). | Debtor may claim 222.25(4) when the homestead exemption does not impede administration and benefits are not received. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2001) (liberal construction of homestead exemptions; exceptions strict)
- Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1992) (strict construction of constitutional exemptions' exceptions)
- Olesky v. Nicholas, 82 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1955) (homestead exempt from forced sale except enumerated exceptions)
- Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2007) (waiver of homestead exemption rules and protections)
- Hutchinson Shoe Co. v. Turner, 130 So. 623 (Fla. 1930) (homestead character is immediate and self-executing)