Traci K. Stevenson v. James v. Uttermohlen , 525 Fed. Appx. 916 ( 2013 )

Case: 13-10289 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[ DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10289
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-02584-VMC,
Bkcy No. 8:10-bk-14527-CPM
In Re: JAMES V. UTTERMOHLEN,
Debtor.
___________________________________________________
TRACI K. STEVENSON,
Plaintiff- Appellant,
versus
JAMES V. UTTERMOHLEN,
Defendant -Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 9, 2013)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-10289 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
This appeal involves debtor James V. Uttermohlen=s (Uttermohlen) filing
under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2010, seeking to discharge
approximately $40,000.00, in unsecured, non-priority liabilities. 1 On his Schedule
C, Uttermohlen filed a Schedule C exempt asset claim to a A2010 Tax Refund,@ in
an amount to be determined, under Florida law. Uttermohlen later amended his
Schedule C to claim that the amount was $10,668.00, and by definition was
exempt as tenancy-by-the-entireties property under 11 U.S.C. ' 522(b)(3)(B), as
well as Florida law.
Bankruptcy trustee Traci K. Stevenson (Trustee) objected on three grounds:
(1) that the refunded tax contributions solely related to Uttermohlen=s income,
business income, and losses; (2) that the non-filing spouse does not work outside
the home; and, (3) that the 2010 Tax Refund is not tenancy-by-the-entireties
property and should be apportioned according to each spouse’s= income
contribution.
1
There was a jurisdictional issue in this appeal that was carried with the case. Upon
review, we find that the order of the district court, affirming the bankruptcy court order
overruling the Trustee=s objection to an exemption claimed under 11 U.S.C. ' 522(b)(3)(B), is a
final and appealable order. See Wisz v. Moister (in the Matter of Wisz), 778 F.2d 762, 764 (11th
Cir. 1985); Growth Realty Cos. v. Regency Woods Apts. (In re Regency Woods Apts.), 686 F.2d
899, 902 (11th Cir. 1982).
2
Case: 13-10289 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 3 of 3
After two hearings, the bankruptcy court overruled the Trustee=s Objection
to Debtor=s Claim of Exemptions in 2011. The bankruptcy court found that all
unities required to own property as tenants-by-the-entireties existed on the date that
Uttermohlen filed bankruptcy, and that therefore the tax refund was properly
claimed as exempt property.
The Trustee appealed to the district court. In a well-reasoned, thorough
opinion, the district court affirmed the ruling of the bankruptcy court. We have
reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3