Colwell v. Royal Int'l Trading Corp. (In Re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Colwell v. Royal Int'l Trading Corp. (In Re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Glenn F. Straub v. 160 Royal Palm, LLC (ca11, 2023-08-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Glenn F. Straub v. 160 Royal Palm, LLC
11th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
Co., 82 So. 3d 73, 80 (Fla. 2012), and “the substan- tive law of the forum state governs issues of state law that arise in bankruptcy proceedings,” Menchise v. Akerman Senterfitt, 532 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cohen v. Kellogg
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Moreover, a debtor’s homestead exemption claim is presumptively valid, In re Schumacher, 400 B.R. at 835 (citing Colwell v. Royal Int'l Trading Corp., 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir. 1999)), and the party objecting to a claimed exemption bears the burden of “‘mak[ing] a strong showing’ the debtor is not entitled to the claimed exemption,” id. (quoting In re Franzese, 383 B.R. 197 , 202–03 (Bankr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Adaluz Rojas De Bauer
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Fla 2008)). 7 Colwell v. Royal Int'l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Migell
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir. 1999). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Cook
Bankr. N.D. Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Rodale
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
Bankruptcy Courts “must interpret and apply the Florida exemption law in the same manner as a Florida State Court.” In re Minton, 402 B.R. 380, 383 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2008) (quoting Colwell v. Royal International Trading Corporation, 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Booth
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2009 · confidence medium
Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chira v. Saal
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Indus., 196 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir.1999) (applying state law to construction and enforceability of settlement agreement arising under Title VII). “[T]he substantive law of the forum state governs issues of state law that arise in bankruptcy proceedings.” Menchise v. Akerman Senterfitt, 532 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th Cir.2008) (citing Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Schumacher (2×)
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2008 · confidence medium
Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999); 11 U.S.C. § 522 (l) (“[T]he property claimed as exempt on such list is exempt”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Minton
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2008 · confidence medium
A “bankruptcy court must interpret and apply the Florida exemption law in the same manner as a Florida State Court.” Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neilson v. Laing (In Re Laing)
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2005 · confidence medium
When we say ‘legitimately’ we mean that there is no ‘fraudulent or otherwise egregious act’ by the beneficiary of the homestead exemption.” See also Radin v. Radin, 593 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Law v. Law, 738 So.2d 522, 525 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999) The Eleventh Circuit in the case of Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999) stated that the Bankruptcy Court must interpret and apply the Florida exemption law in the same manner as the Florida State Courts.
cited Cited "see" Menchise v. Akerman Senterfitt
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225, 1226 (11th Cir.1999); Fruehauf Corp. v. Revitz (In re Transystems, Inc.), 569 F.2d 1364, 1366 (5th Cir.1978).
cited Cited "see" In Re Roberge
Bankr. D. Vt. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Colwell, 196 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" In Re Brissont
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In re Minor
Bankr. W.D. Wis. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Colwell v. Royal Int’l Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir.1999); In re Hall, 395 B.R. 722, 731 (Bankr.D.Kan.2008); In re Roberge, 307 B.R. 442 (Bankr.D.Vt.2004).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In re Pace
Bankr. N.D. Miss. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Colwell v. Royal International Trading Corp. (In re Colwell), 196 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir.1999); In re Roberge, 307 B.R. 442, 448 (Bankr.D.Vt.2004). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re William Frederick COLWELL and Ruby Colwell, Debtors. William Frederick Colwell, Ruby Colwell, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Royal International Trading Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
98-5626.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Nov 19, 1999.
196 F.3d 1225
Tina M. Talarchyk, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellant., John P. Tynan, Jupiter, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Anderson, Dubina, Godbold, Per Curiam.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The Colwells jointly filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Although Florida law[*1226] does not recognize legal separations the Colwells had been separated for 3½ years before filing the petition. Prior to the bankruptcy petition each had acquired a separate home and had obtained a separate homestead exemption on that home.

Florida has chosen to opt out of federal exemptions and elected to apply its own. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1); Fla. Stat. §§ 222.21 and 222.20; 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 522.08 at 522-44, n. 8a. The Colwells asserted to the bankruptcy court that Article X, § 4 of the Florida constitution required that they be granted separate homestead exemptions. Royal International excepted. In 1998 the bankruptcy court sustained the exception, stating that it could find no case law to support dual homestead exemptions for married individuals residing on two distinct, non-contiguous parcels of property. See In re Colwell, 208 B.R. 85 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1997). The Colwells appealed to the United States District Court, S.D. Florida, which reversed the bankruptcy court. Royal appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

Pursuant to Erie Railway the bankruptcy court must interpret and apply the Florida exemption law in the same manner as a Florida state court. Florida state court decisions establish that as a matter of the public policy of the state, giving a liberal construction as required, a homestead exemption can be established to each of two people who are married but legitimately living apart in separate residences, if they otherwise meet the requirements of the exception, and, by “legitimately” they mean that there is no fraudulent or otherwise egregious act by the beneficiary of the exemption. Law v. Law, 738 So.2d 522 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1999); In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028 (11th Cir.1996) (closely analyzing Florida law and using Florida state court eases to determine the applicability of the Florida homestead exemption); Myers v. Lehrer, 671 So.2d 864, 866 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1996); Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla.1988); Isaacson v. Isaacson, 504 So.2d 1309 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.1987); see also Rodin v. Radin, 593 So.2d 1231 (Fla.App.3d Dist.1992). There is a presumption that the exemption applies. See Snyder v. Davis, 699 So.2d 999, 1002 (Fla.1997). The district court concluded that the living arrangements of the Colwells were not shown to be the subject of fraud and that Royal had not brought forth evidence to overcome the presumption favoring the exception. There was no error.

AFFIRMED.