green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
40.8 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2000–2021 · 2 courts ·
…a tenant by the entireties holds an indivisible right to own and occupy the entire property.
at p. 1139
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Timothy Thomas McCallan
(2×)
property held by a debtor as a tenant-by-the-entireties is exempt from the claims of individual creditors in bankruptcy under florida common law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UBS v. Lorenzo Esteva
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
A tenancy by the entireties is present when two spouses hold “an indivisible right to own and occupy the entire property.” Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert L Higgins
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 1139-40 (“Avoiding the transfer which created a tenancy-by- 25 The Page court also stated that “When the court sustains an objection to an entireties exemption, the trustee may sell the interest of the non-debtor spouse, but only under the conditions prescribed in section 363(h)-(j).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kornfeld
The partial taking results from the fact that “[a] tenant by the entireties holds an indivisible right to own and occupy the entire property.” Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patton v. Cole, Jr.
He was insolvent at the time of the transfers and moved the monies two weeks after receiving 46 Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 1999). 47 Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Assocs., 780 So. 2d 45, 53 (Fla. 2001) (“[W]hen property is held as a tenancy by the entireties, only the creditors of both the husband and wife, jointly, may attach the tenancy by the entireties property; the property is not divisible on behalf of one spouse alone, and therefore it cannot be reached to satisfy the obligation of only one spouse”); Meyer v. Faust, 83 So. 2d 847, 848 (Fla. 1955) (holdi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tardif v. McCuan (In re McCuan)
In re Sinnreich, 391 F.3d 1295, 1296 (11th Cir. 2004) (Chapter 13); Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 1999) (Chapter 7).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund, Ltd.
Appellants fail to explain how the Bankruptcy Court's preliminary determination of ownership is similar to adversary actions in which (1) a party sought to avoid the creation of a tenancy by the entireties via a fraudulent conveyance, Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139-40 (11th Cir.1999), (2) a creditor sought an equitable interest in property rather than a general unsecured claim, Matter of Haber Oil Co., Inc., 12 F.3d 426, 437 (5th Cir.1994), or (3) a debtor sought to invalidate a lien, In re Mansaray-Ruffin, 530 F.3d 230, 242 (3d Cir.2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stevenson v. Uttermohlen (In re Uttermohlen)
Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Davis
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1140 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dzikowski v. Schein (In Re Sherwin)
In re McRae, 308 B.R. 572, 575 (N.D.Fla.2003) (citing Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tolz v. Robedee (In Re Robedee)
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Schwarz
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re McRae
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zubrod v. Duncan
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hitt, 197 F.3d 1135, 1140-41 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill
(2×)
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1144 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. FTC v. Chierico
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The partial taking results from the fact that “[a] tenant by the entireties holds an indivisible right to own and occupy the entire property.” Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. FTC v. Chierico
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The partial taking results from the fact that “[a] tenant by the entireties holds an indivisible right to own and occupy the entire property.” Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stuart J. McGregor Receiver-Appellee, United States Federal Trade Commission v. Teri Chierico, Michael Chierico, William Bethell, United States Federal Trade Commission v. Teri Chierico, Michael Chierico, American Business Supplies, United States Federal Trade Commission v. Michael Chierico, American Business Supplies, Inc., Creative Business Consultants, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The partial taking results from the fact that "[a] tenant by the entireties holds an indivisible right to own and occupy the entire property." Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Adam Lee v. Dane Field
See Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1140 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Lowery
See Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1141 (11th Cir.1999) (noting contrary interpretations of Florida law on the subject and certifying the question of the existence of a “fraudulent conversion” exception to the Supreme Court of Florida). 2 Courts within this district have differed on the issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Aloisi
See Havoco v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135 , 1141-42, 1144 (11th Cir.1999) (providing comprehensive summary of Florida cases to illustrate divergence in approaches to Florida's homestead exemption, and certifying to Florida Supreme Court question of whether Article X, Section 4 of Florida’s Constitution exempts a homestead acquired with non-exempt funds where the debtor’s specific intent is to defraud creditors). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jack M. Lee, and Margaret B. Lee, Claimant-Appellant
See Havoco *561 of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.1999) (finding that a tenant by the entirety does not possess a forfeitable interest in property); United States v. One Single Family Residence With Out Buildings, 894 F.2d 1511, 1515-16 (11th Cir.1990) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lee, Jack M.
See Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 1999) (finding that a tenant by the entirety does not possess a forfeitable interest in property); United States v. One Single Family Residence With Out Buildings, 894 F.2d 1511, 1515-16 (11th Cir. 1990) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Tabone
See Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135, 1143-44 (11th Cir.1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Havoco of America
v.
Hill
v.
Hill
97-2277.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 10, 1999.
Published
HAVOCO OF AMERICA, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Elmer C. HILL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-2277.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
July 5, 2001.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (No. 95-30585-CV-RV); Roger Vinson, Judge. Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and SMITH*, District Judge.
v.
Elmer C. HILL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-2277.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
July 5, 2001.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (No. 95-30585-CV-RV); Roger Vinson, Judge. Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and SMITH*, District Judge.
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.
* Honorable C. Lynwood Smith, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.