FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPT 22, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1559 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock et No. 0 6- 00 56 2 C V-T-2 7- TGW BRIAN DOWL ING, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us MICH AE L E . D AV IS, EMILY SEIBEL, D ef en da nts -Appe llants
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (S ep te m be r 22, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Michael E . D avis and E m ily Seibel appeal, presenting two issues. First, they
co nte nd tha t t he dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in en ter ing am one y

j udgm en t a ga ins t S ei be l.2

Second, they

contend that th ey

are at risk for dupl icative liability because it is unclear
w he th er p ay

m en ts o n th e pr ior

j udgm en ts a ga ins t D av is s houl d be c re dit ed to the j udgm en t a ga ins t S ei be l i n th is c as e. W e ad dr es s e ac h is sue in tur n. A. THE MONEY JUDGMENT T he fi r s ti s s u e o n ap p e a l i s w h e t h e r F l o r i d al a w p e rm i t s am o n e y j u d g m en t ag ai nst atr an sf er ee und er

the c ir cu m stanc es of

thi s c as e. S ec tio n 72 6. 109(2)( a) of the F lor ida

S ta tut es pr ovi de s inr el ev an t part a s f oll ow s: (2) Exce pt as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfe r is v oid ab le in an ac tio n by ac re dit or und er § 72 6. 108( 1) (2 ), the c re dit or m ay r ec ove r j udgm en t f

or the va lue of the a sse t t ransf er re d .
. . , or

the am ount ne ce ssary to sa tis fy the cr ed ito r’ s cl ai m , w hic he ve r is l es s. T he j udgm en t m ay

be e nte re d a ga ins t: (a) Th e fi rs t t ran sf

erre e o f th e as se t . . . Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726 .109(2)(a) (W est 2000 ) (e m phasis add ed). D efendants argue that the c ondi tio n pr ec ed en t

) “ to th e ex te nt a tra ns fer is vo id ab le . . .”

) wa s not satis fied in this ca se , an d thus the j udgm en t aga ins t transf er ee Se ibe l i s pr ec lud ed
. D ef en da nts
ar gue tha t t he c ondi tio n w as not sa tis fi ed be ca use the f unds in the t en an cy

by the
en tir ety w er e use d th re e d ay s l a t e r to pur ch as e a co nst itu tio na lly pr ote ct ed hom es te ad
. W e re j e c t D e f e n d a n t s ’ a r g u m e n t
. T h e f l a w i n D e f

e n d a n t s ’ a r g u m e n t i s t h a t t he
co ndi tio n pr ec ed en t i n th e sta tut e is tha t t he tr an sf er be voi dable , not

tha t t he tr an sf er re d f unds m ust ha ve be en ac tua lly av oid ed
. U nde r the pla in m eanin g of theDef endants make only limit ed fac tual arguments challeng ing the district court’s c onclusion 1 that the transf

er into the tena

ncy by the en t i rety

was a voidable fr audulent tra

nsfer , and we reje ct tho se argume nts a s b e ingwi tho ut m e ri t. 3 Fl or ida sta tut e, it is cl ear tha t the iss ue is w he the r the tr an sf er int o the te na nc y

by the entirety wa s “ void able”

) i. e. , w he the r it co uld ha ve be ena voi de d a t t ha t t im e. A s th e dis tr ic t cou rt

e xpl ai ne d inthi s c as e, the tr an sf er of f unds int o th e te na nc y

by the
en tir ety w as voi dable as af

ra udul en t t ransf

er . W e not e tha t t he ini tia l t ransf er int o 1 the tenancy

by the entirety is a differ ent transfer than the transfer of f unds out of that account to purchase the hom estead three day s later. T he m er e fact that the latter transfer wa s not ac tually avoided, and could not be because of F lorida's constitu tional hom es te ad

e xe m pti on, sa y s no thi ng a

bout w he the r the tr an sf

er int o th e te na nc y by

the entirety wa s void able. Furtherm ore, it is not relevant that t h er e wa s no actual
av oid an ce be fo re the bul k of the f unds w er e tr an sf

er re d to pur ch as e the hom es te ad
. Fo r the fo re goi ng re as ons, w e hol d tha t the co ndi tio n pr ec eden t i n t he sta tut e ) “ to the extent a transfe r is voidable”

) is s at isf ie d. A cc or din gly , pur suant t o the pla in m eanin g of

the la ngua ge of the sta tut e, am one y j udgm en t a ga ins t D ef

en da nt in “ the am ount necessary to satisfy the cre ditor’ s claim ” is perm issib le. B. DUPLICATIVE LIABILITY W e co nc lud e tha t Def

en da nts ’ c ont en tio ns a

bout dup lic at ive li ab ili ty

ha ve
m er it. A nd, at or al ar gum en t Do w lin g voic ed no obj ec tio n to the j udgm en t he re be ing4

am ended to say

that paym ents m ade on the prior j udgm ents against Davis that are a t iss ue ) the fi na l j udgm en ts of May 1, 200 2, a nd O ct obe r 29, 200 2

) shou ld be cre dited against the judgm ent entered against Seibel in this case. C. CONCLUSION The j udgm ent entered in this case is aff irm ed, but we re m an d to the dist rict
co urt w ith ins tr

uc tio ns t o a m en d th e fi na l j udgm en t by ins er tin g a t t he e nd o f se ct ion 1 on page 3 of the Order and Final Judg m ent the following sentence: A ll pa ym en ts m ad e on the a fo re m en tio ne d f ina l j udgm en t s a g a i n s t

D av is of May 1, 200 2, a nd O ct ober 29 , 200 2, ( w he the r pr ev iou sly m ad e or m ad e h e re af

te r) sha ll be ac re dit

a ga ins t t his j udgm en t a ga ins t D ef en da nt E m ily S ei be l. AFFIR MED IN PART; R EMANDED W ITH INSTRUCTIONS TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT.