TAGGED OPINION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

In re:

JACQUES SCOTT, Case No. 21-20532-SMG

Debtor. Chapter 7

____________________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR’S 

CLAIMED EXEMPTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR TURNOVER

Debtor Jacques Scott claimed his Green Boat Trailer mobile home as exempt 

from property of his bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3) and Fla. Stat. 

§ 222.05.1 He also claimed a $4,000 exemption in personal property under 11 U.S.C. 

§ 522(b)(3) and Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4).

2 Trustee Les Osborne objected to Mr. Scott’s 

claimed exemptions,

3 arguing that a debtor may not claim the $4,000 personal 

1 ECF No. 1.

2 Id.

3 ECF No. 22.

Scott M. Grossman, Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________ United States Bankruptcy Court

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 12, 2022.

Case 21-20532-SMG Doc 25 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 4
2

property exemption provided by Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4) if the debtor has also claimed 

a homestead exemption.4

But that is not what Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4) says. Section 222.25(4) only prohibits 

a debtor from claiming the $4,000 exemption if the debtor claims or receives the 

benefits of a homestead exemption under section 4, article X of the Florida 

Constitution. Specifically, section 222.25(4) states in relevant part that:

The following property is exempt from attachment, garnishment, or 

other legal process . . . (4) A debtor’s interest in personal property, not 

to exceed $4,000, if the debtor does not claim or receive the benefits of a 

homestead exemption under s. 4, Art. X of the State Constitution. 

This exemption does not apply to a debt owed for child support or 

spousal support.5

Had Mr. Scott claimed a homestead exemption under section 4, article X of the 

Florida Constitution, the Trustee would be correct. But here, Mr. Scott did not claim 

Florida’s constitutional homestead exemption. Rather, he claimed a statutory 

exemption in his mobile home under Fla. Stat. § 222.05, which states:

Any person owning and occupying any dwelling house, including a 

mobile home used as a residence, or modular home, on land not his or 

her own which he or she may lawfully possess, by lease or otherwise,

and claiming such house, mobile home, or modular home as his or her 

homestead, shall be entitled to the exemption of such house, mobile 

home, or modular home from levy and sale as aforesaid.6

Mr. Scott argues that the statutory exemption for a mobile home under Fla. 

Stat. § 222.05 is not the same as the constitutional exemption for a homestead under 

section 4, article X of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons set forth in thorough 

4 Because he argued that Mr. Scott sought to exempt more property than that to which he is entitled, 

the Trustee also requested that Mr. Scott turn over the “over-exempt” property (or the value thereof) 

to be sold for the benefit of his creditors. Id.

5 Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4) (emphasis added).

6 Fla. Stat. § 222.05.

Case 21-20532-SMG Doc 25 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 4
3

and well-reasoned decisions from both the Middle District of Florida (In re Lisowski)

7

and the Northern District of Florida (In re Heckman)

8 Bankruptcy Courts, this Court 

agrees with Mr. Scott. The two exemptions are different:

the homestead exemption provided by Article X, Section 4(a)(1) of the 

Florida Constitution applies to improved land or real property owned by 

a debtor, provided the debtor’s residence is situated on the land. Section 

222.05 of the Florida Statutes, on the other hand, expressly applies to 

persons who do not own the land upon which their mobile home is 

situated.9

And because the two exemptions are different, a homestead exemption under Fla. 

Stat. § 222.05 is not a “homestead exemption under s. 4, Art. X of the State 

Constitution” that would disqualify Mr. Scott from claiming the $4,000 personal 

property exemption provided by Fla. Stat. § 222.25(4).10

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in both Lisowski11 and 

Heckman12 – which the Court adopts and incorporates here in their entireties – it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Trustee’s Objection to Debtor’s Claimed Exemptions13 is 

OVERRULED.

2. The Trustee’s Motion for Turnover14 is DENIED.

# # #

7 395 B.R. 771 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008).

8 395 B.R. 737 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2008).

9 Lisowski, 395 B.R. at 779.

10 Id. at 781.

11 Id. at 772-81.

12 Heckman, 395 B.R. at 738-41.

13 ECF No. 22.

14 Id.

Case 21-20532-SMG Doc 25 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 4
4

Copy furnished to Leslie S. Osborne, Esq., who must serve a copy of this Order on all 

required parties and file a certificate of service in accordance with Local Rule 2002-

1(F).

Case 21-20532-SMG Doc 25 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 4