Schweizer v. Chambers (In re Schweizer)

Summarized by Douglas Bates , Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse
15 years 5 months ago

Citation:

(11th Circuit, Dec 31,1969)

Tag(s):

11th Circuit

Ruling:

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming the district court, agreed with the district court's analysis which concluded that "the bankruptcy court correctly held that it [the bankruptcy court] was bound by the state court's identification fo the 160 acres covered by the homestead exemption" and that the bankruptcy court is not in a position to reexamine, for purposes of ruling on a lien avoidance motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f), what property is subject to the homestead exemption when a state court has previously entered a final order determining the issue.

Procedural context:

Appeal from district court judgment affirming bankruptcy determination of an individual Chapter 7 Debtor's Lien Avoidance Motion under 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f).

Facts:

The Debtor purchased a 320-acre parcel of land in 2003 and lived on the subject property which straddled two counties. Two creditors of the Debtor obtained separate judgments against the Debtor and recorded those judgments in the two counties where the subject property was located. Later, one of the creditors filed suit in state court to foreclose its lien and the remaining creditor, who was a party to the initial suit, sought to enforce its subordinate lien. A dispute arose in state court as to which 160 contiguous acres of the 320-acre parcel should be deemed homestead property. Article X of the Florida State Constitution provides that a person who owns and resides on property located outside a municipality may claim a homestead exemption on up to 160 acres of continguous land. The state court resolved the dispute and specifically described the portion of the subject property that would be deemed homestead property. After the deadline for an appeal of the state court order had passed, but before a scheduled foreclosure sale, the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. In the bankruptcy case, the Debtor sought to eliminate the liens against the subject property he claimed as exempt homestead property pursuant to Section 522(f). Based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the bankruptcy court denied the Debtor's motion and held that it could not reexamine the state court's determination.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!