FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT OBER 7, 2 010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 00 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 5 :0 8- cv -0 05 15
In Re: TIMOTHY VERN SCHW EIZER,
Deb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TIMOTHY VERN SCHW EIZER,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us GENE T . CHAMBERS , NC TW O, LP, CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION,
Defen da nt s- App el le es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 7 , 20 10 )
Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS, an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Tim ot hy Vern Sc hwe iz er ap pe al s th e jud gm en t of the di st ric t cou rt a ffi rm in g th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s de ci si on ho ld in g th at th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t m ay no t reex am in e th e is su e of wha t pro pe rty is s ub ject t o t he ho m es te ad ex em pt io n i n ru li ng on a li en

av oi da nc e m ot io n un de r 11 U.S.C. § 52 2( f) whe n a st at e co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly en te red

a fin al or de r de te rm in in g th e po rti on of a de b t o r ’s l a nd th at is co ve red by th e st at e ho m es te ad ex em

pt io n. We affi rm
. The fact s in th is cas e are un di sp ut ed

. Sch weiz er pu rch as ed a 32 0- acre pa rcel
of la nd in 20 03 an d li ve d on th e pr op ert y
. In 20 05 , two c r e d i t o r s

– NC Two, L.P.,

an d Cap it ol In de m

ni ty Co rp or at io n – ob ta in ed se pa rat e jud gm en ts ag ai ns t Sch weiz er

an d reco rd ed th em in th e two co un ti es whi ch th e pr op ert y st rad dl es
. Late r th at sa m e
y ear, NC Two file d an acti on in st at e co ur t to fo recl os e it s li en
. Cap it ol was a pa rty
to th e act io n an d so ug ht to en fo rce it s su bo rd in at e li en
. Und er Fl or id a la w, a pe rs on

w ho own s an d res id es on pr op ert y lo cat ed ou ts id e a m un ic ip al it y m ay cl ai m a ho m es te ad ex em

pt io n on up to 16 0 acre s of co nt ig uo us la nd

. Fl a. Co ns t. art

. X, § 10

. NC Two, Cap it ol , an d Sch weiz er d i s a g reed on whi ch 16 0 co nt ig uo us acre s of th e 32 0- acre pa rcel sh ou ld be de em ed ho m es te ad pr op ert y
. The pa rti es br ie fed a nd
arg ue d th e is su e. The st at e co ur t res ol ve d th e d i s p u t e in th e cred it or s’ fav or , sp eci fic al ly de sc rib in g th e pr op ert y th at was ex em pt an d sc he du li ng a fo recl os ur e sa le

2on th e rem ai nd er of th e pr op ert y
. Sch weiz er di d no t ap pe al th e de ci si on an d do es no t

no w tak e th e p os it io n t ha t t he st at e co ur t’s d eci si on was wro ng
. Afte r th e de ad li ne fo r an y ap pe al ha d p a ss ed , bu t be fo re th e sc he du le d
fo recl os ur e sa le , Sch weiz er fil ed a Ch ap te r 7 ba nk ru pt cy pe ti ti on
. The fil in g st ay ed
th e fo recl os ur e sa le

. In hi s am en de d s c h e du le C, Sch weiz er cl ai m ed a ho m es te ad

ex em pt io n on 16 0 acre s of pr op ert y wit hi n th e 32 0- acre pa rcel di ffer en t fro m th e 16 0

acre s t ha t t he st at e co ur t h ad de cree d c on st it ut ed hi s h om es te ad . NC Two, Cap it ol ,

an d t he ba nk ru pt cy

tru st ee o bjec te d.
Sch weiz er m ov ed un de r 11 U.S.C. § 52 2( f) to el im in at e NC Two’s an d Cap it ol ’s li en s fro m th e 16 0 acr e s h e c la im ed as ex em pt

. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, ho ld in g th at un de r th e Roo ker -Fel dma n do ct rin e, it co ul d no t 1

reex am in e th e st at e co ur t’s de te rm in at io n, an d th at on ly th e la nd id en ti fie d by th e
st at e co ur t was ex em

pt

. Sch weiz er ap p e a l e d , an d th e di st ric t co ur t affi rm ed th e de ci si on of th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t. Sch weiz er ap pe al s; he arg ue s th at th e co ur t erred
in co nc lu di ng th at th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t co ul d no t reex a mi n e th e is su e of hi s ho m es te ad ex em

pt io n un de r a li en av oi da nc e m ot io n pu rs ua nt to 11 U.S.C. § 52 2( f).

See Rooke r v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court 1 of Appeals v. Fe ldman , 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. C t. 1303 (1983). 3Sch weiz er arg u e s t ha t th e st at e co ur t’s jud gm en t reg ard in g hi s ho m es te ad

ex emp t i o n may be av oi de d as th e fix in g of a jud ic ia l li en on an in te res t in hi s
pr op ert y
. In su pp or t of hi s co n t e n ti on , Sch weiz er rel ie s on cas es th at ex am in e th e

sc op e of Sect io n 52 2( f). W ha t Sch weiz er fai ls to reco gn iz e, ho wev er, is th at th e ke y
to th is cas e is no t § 52 2( f), b ut rat he r § 5 22 (b ).
A f t e r a de bt or fil es fo r ba nk ru pt cy , he is en ti tl ed to ret ai n cert ai n as s e t s a s

ex e mp t fro m th e ba nk ru pt cy es ta te

. Alt ho ug h th e ba nk ru pt cy co de pr ov id es

ex e mp t i o n s , a st at e m ay op t-o ut of th os e ex em pt io ns an d pr ov id e al te rn at iv e

ex em pt io ns
. 11 U.S.C. § 52 2( b)

. In a n o p t

- o u t st at e, de bt or s m ay ex em pt “ an y
pr op ert y th at is ex em

pt un de r . . . Stat e o r lo cal law t ha t i s app li cab le on th e d at e o f
th e fil in g of th e pe ti ti on .” Id

. § 52 2( b) (3 )(A). Fl or id a el ect ed to op t-o ut an d ha s

en act ed it s o wn ex em

pt io ns . Fla. St at . § 2 22 .20

. Sect io n 54 1 of th e Ban kr up tc y Co de de fin es pr op ert y of th e es ta te as “ al l le ga l

or eq ui ta bl e in te res ts of th e de bt or in pr op ert y as of th e co m m en cem en t of th e cas e.”
W e ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at st at e la w de fin es th e sc op e an d ex is te nc e of th e pr op ert y in te res t

. I

n r e S i n nr ei ch , 39 1 F.3 d 12 95 , 12 97 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng But ne r v. Uni te d St at es , 44 0 U.S. 48 , 55 , 99 S

. C t

. 9 1 4 , 91 8 (1 97 9) ). The refo re, Fl or id a la w
go ve rn s th e sc op e an d ex is te nc e of th e de bt or ’s in te res t in ho m es te ad pr op ert y
. 11 U.S.C. § 5 22 (b ); F la . Sta t. § 22 2.2 0.

4I n t h i s cas e, whe n th e st at e co ur t en te red jud gm en t de li ne at in g th e ex te nt of

Sch weiz er’s ho m es te ad ex em pt io n, it de fin ed th e sc op e an d ex is te nc e of Sch weiz er’s § 52 2( b) p r o p e r t y i n te res t. Thu s, at th e ti m e of Sch weiz er’s ba nk ru pt cy fil in g, th e 16 0- a c r e p a r c el de te rm in ed by th e st at e co ur t, an d no t an y ot he r di vi si on of
S c h w e i z e r ’s 32 0 acre s, was su bjec t to th e li en av oi da nc e pr ot ect io ns of § 52 2( f).
Sect io n 52 2( f) pr ov id es th at “ th e de bt or m ay av oi d th e fix in g of a li en on an in te res t of th e d eb to r in pro pe rty to t he ex te nt th at su ch li en im pa irs an ex em

pt io n to whi ch
th e de bt or wou ld ha ve be en en t it le d un de r su bs ect io n (b ) of th is se ct io n
. . . .”
Co ns eq ue nt ly, § 52 2( f) pr ot ect io ns are on ly av ai la bl e if a l i e n i m pa irs a de bt or ’s §
52 2( b) ex em

pt pr op ert y
. Here, th e st at e co ur t de fin ed wha t pr op ert y Sch weiz er was al lo wed to cl ai m as ex em pt , bu t Sch weiz er di sr eg ard ed th e st at e co u r t’s de fin it io n, cl ai m ed th at ot he r la nd was ex em pt , an d so ug ht to av oi d li en s to po rti on s of hi s 32 0-

acre pro pe rty tha t ar e n ot co ve red by § 52 2( b) . This , cle arl y , is no t al lo wed

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s well -rea so ne d an al y si s co nc lu di ng th at th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t co rrec tl y he ld th at it was bo un d by t he st at e co ur t’s id en ti fic at io n of th e 16 0 acre s co ve red by t he ho m es te ad ex em pt io n. (R.1 -2 1 at 3- 9.) The refo re,

we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in affi rm in g th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s de ci si on
. AFFIR MED.

5