1 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTIRCT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

Ricardo Ruben Uliambre Pettengill 

Debtor, CASE NO.: 21-11326-PDR 

 Chapter 13 

______________________________/ 

RESPONSE TO DEBTOR’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEBTOR’S MOTION 

TO AVOID JUDICIAL LIEN IMPAIRING EXEMPT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY 

COMES NOW, Creditor, Georges Interior Design, Inc. (hereafter “Georges Interior”) and in 

response to Debtor’s Memorandum in Support of Debtor’s Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien Impairing 

Exempt Homestead Property [DE 104] (hereafter “Memorandum”) states: 

In re Epstein, 298 B.R. 917 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2003) and Cannon v. Cannon, 254 B.R. 773 

(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2000), both hold that a judicial lien which is not enforceable against Debtor’s 

homestead property under Article 10, §4 of Florida’s Constitution1, does not fix against or impair the 

Debtor’s exempt homestead property and therefore cannot be avoided under §522(f)(1)(A). It is 

undisputed that Georges Interior’s lien herein, is a judicial lien which neither fixes nor impairs the 

Debtor’s homestead property under Article 10, §4 of Florida’s Constitution. Although Bankruptcy 

judges in Florida are split on this issue, this Court, like the Court in In re Epstein, must consider 

itself duty-bound by the published court opinions rendered by judges of the United States District 

 

1 Article 10, §4(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that homestead property “shall be exempt from forced sale under 

process of any court and no judgment, decree or execution shall be a lien thereon, except for the payment of taxes 

and assessments thereon, obligations contracted for the purchase, improvement, or repair thereof, or obligations 

Case 21-11326-PDR Doc 107 Filed 10/27/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

Court for the Southern District of Florida. In re Epstein, at 920. 

Alluding to public policy and practical considerations, Debtor mistakenly contends that 

following Cannon and Epstein would prevent a debtor “from selling a homestead property unless and 

until the lien is resolved.” Memorandum pg. 4. Chapter 222 of the Florida Statutes further clarifies 

the constitutional homestead protection and provides a process by which an owner of real property 

can declare his or her homestead rights and prevent an execution of judgment against the property. 

Under Fla. Stat. §222.01, once a homeowner has claimed a homestead exemption, the sheriff cannot 

levy against the property unless the creditor prevails against the homeowner's claimed homestead 

exemption. As long as he or she follows the procedures provided by Chapter 222, a debtor can sell 

and/or mortgage the homestead property without any impairment from the unresolved lien. 

Therefore, neither public policy nor practical considerations should impair this Court’s 

obligation to follow established precedent of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida. 

For ease of reference copies of the following are attached as Composite Exhibit “1”: 

In re Epstein, 298 B.R. 917 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2003); Cannon v. Cannon, 254 B.R. 773 

(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2000); Article 10, §4 of Florida’s Constitution and Fla. Stat. §222.01.

 Georges Interior Design, Inc 

 By:/s/ Camilo Otero 

 

contracted for...labor performed on the realty...” 

Case 21-11326-PDR Doc 107 Filed 10/27/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

SERVICE LIST 

Attorneys for Debtor 

Rachmin “Rocky” Cohen, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 96305 

101 NE Third Ave. Suite 1500 

Ft. Lauderdla, FL 33301 

Telephone: (305) 570-2326 

E-Mail Address: rocky@lawcls.com

 

Case 21-11326-PDR Doc 107 Filed 10/27/21 Page 3 of 3