Traci K. Stevenson v. James V. Uttermohlen, No. 13-10289 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10289 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10289 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
