Staten Island Savings Bank v. Morace

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Staten Island Savings Bank v. Morace

745 So. 2d 467, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15119, 1999 WL 1037971

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0872

StatusPublished

This text of 745 So. 2d 467 (Staten Island Savings Bank v. Morace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Staten Island Savings Bank v. Morace, 745 So. 2d 467, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15119, 1999 WL 1037971 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

We affirm the decision of the trial court denying Appellant’s motion for relief from fraudulent transfer where the insolvent Appellee allegedly converted non-exempt assets into homestead property to avoid payment of a New York judgment. The judgment was rendered prior to, but domesticated in Florida after, Appellee’s establishment of his homestead exemption.

In Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56 (Fla.1992), our supreme court held that neither the legislature nor the supreme court had the power to create an exception to the constitutionally provided homestead exemption. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion of the federal district court in Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York v. Lang, 898 F.Supp. 883 (S.D.Fla. 1995), that the establishment of a homestead, otherwise exempted from forced sale, cannot be defeated by statutory provisions for voiding a fraudulent transfer, even where the debtor’s intent in establishing a homestead is to defeat creditors’ claims. We note that the judgment here is not for an obligation incident to the purchase or improvement of the homestead property.

WARNER, C.J. and COX, CYNTHIA, Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STONE, J.

We affirm the decision of the trial court denying Appellant’s motion for relief from fraudulent transfer where the insolvent Appellee allegedly converted non-exempt assets into homestead property to avoid payment of a New York judgment. The judgment was rendered prior to, but domesticated in Florida after, Appellee’s establishment of his homestead exemption.

In Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56 (Fla.1992), our supreme court held that neither the legislature nor the supreme court had the power to create an exception to the constitutionally provided homestead exemption. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion of the federal district court in Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York v. Lang, 898 F.Supp. 883 (S.D.Fla. 1995), that the establishment of a homestead, otherwise exempted from forced sale, cannot be defeated by statutory provisions for voiding a fraudulent transfer, even where the debtor’s intent in establishing a homestead is to defeat creditors’ claims. We note that the judgment here is not for an obligation incident to the purchase or improvement of the homestead property.

WARNER, C.J. and COX, CYNTHIA, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 467, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15119, 1999 WL 1037971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staten-island-savings-bank-v-morace-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack