Case Name: In re: Charles V. LOWERY, Suzanne H. Lowery, Debtors. Cadle Company II, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles V. Lowery, Suzanne H. Lowery, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-09
Citations: 250 F. App'x 911
Docket Number: No. 07-10122
Parties: In re: Charles V. LOWERY, Suzanne H. Lowery, Debtors. Cadle Company II, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles V. Lowery, Suzanne H. Lowery, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 911–912

Head Matter:
In re: Charles V. LOWERY, Suzanne H. Lowery, Debtors. Cadle Company II, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles V. Lowery, Suzanne H. Lowery, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-10122.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 9, 2007.
Keith A. Graham, Marchena and Graham, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.
Honorable Edward Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
BARKETT, Circuit Judge:
Cadle Company II, Inc. is an unsecured creditor holding a $2,002,287.31 judgment against Charles and Suzanne Lowery who have filed for bankruptcy. In their bankruptcy proceedings, the Lowerys claimed that the life insurance policy that they purchased in 1988 was exempt from creditors. The bankruptcy and district court agreed, and Cadle appeals, arguing that those courts, although addressing its claim that the life insurance payments constituted constructive fraud as described in Section 726.106, failed to address its argument that the Lowerys had committed intentional fraud pursuant to Section 726.105 of the Florida Statutes. Cadle specifically argues that the district court erred in concluding that Cadle had waived any argument with reference to intentional fraud, saying that Cadle did not "cite or rely upon Section 726.105 in any filing before the Bankruptcy Court. Instead, Cadle exclusively relied on a section 726.106 constructive fraud theory."
Like the district court, we can find no explicit reference to Section 726.105, the intentional fraud section, in Cadle's filings with the bankruptcy court. However, Cadle did properly assert claims under Sections 222.29 and 222.30, both of which generally prohibit creditors from claiming exemptions that result from fraudulent transfers under "chapter 726." We find that Cadle's invocation of those Sections, along with Cadle's allegations about the Lowerys' fraudulent intent, was sufficient to raise a claim of intentional fraudulent conveyance, which must be addressed.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings herewith.