Constructive Trust Imposed Upon Florida Homestead
Can a court from another state impose a constructive trust on the homestead of a Florida debtor? This interesting question was the subject of an opinion last week from the Fifth District Court of Appeals involving one of my clients. (Case No. 07-3718) The briefest summary of the facts is that my client's former husband (deceased) was trustee of a trust for the benefit of his other family members, and he wrongfully took money from the trust to my a home in Florida for himself and my client, his then current wife. The former husband and my client lived in California at the time they bought the Florida property. A California court entered a judgment in favor of the trust beneficiaries and as a remedy the court imposed a "constructive trust" over the Florida property in favor of the beneficiary-judgment creditor. No one alleged that my client did anything wrong. My client occupies the Florida property as her primary residence. My client filed a lawsuit in Florida asking the court to dissolve the constructive trust on the grounds that the California court had no jurisdiction to impose a trust on Florida real estate and because of my client's homestead protections.
The district court held that a California court had the jurisdiction to impose a constructive trust on a Florida property so long as the foreign court had personal jurisdiction over the debtor. The Court said that an order imposing equitable remedies such as a constructive trust is not an order which directly affects Florida real property. As long as a foreign court has personal jurisdiction it can impose equitable relief in favor of a creditor even if such relief indirectly impacts Florida real estate. The appeals court remanded the case to the lower court to determine homestead issues.
My client argued that the constructive trust is ineffective applied to Florida homestead. The Florida Constitution prohibits judgment creditors from imposing a lien upon or forcing the sale of homestead properties. It is unclear whether the Constitution prohibits this type of constructive trust. It is possible that the courts may permit the constructive trust to stand, prohibit a forced sale of the property, but preserve eventual sale proceeds for the wronged trust beneficiaries.
posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida
a claim of discrimination under the Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that obliges this court to review the case de novo, and construe or ‘straighten out’ all facts in favor of the non-moving party. In this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, EJF has alleged that she was (1) deprived of a federal right, privilege, or immunity (2) by persons acting under color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 638 (1980) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The federal right in question here is derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause provides that: “no State shall . . . deny to any persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” U. S. C. amend. XIV, § 1. In so providing, “the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a ‘class of one’ where the plaintiff did not allege membership in a class or group.” Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). “Successful equal protection claims brought by a ‘class of one’ ” have been recognized “where the citizen alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Olech, 528 U.S. at 564.
Defendant is alleging a class of one- equal protection claim is being ignored by this court in this case as court officers did in the last cases. See Olech, 528 U.S. at 564 n.*
This Court seems to be turning a blind eye to overwhelming evidence
Based on the foregoing factual allegations, EJF asserts she has proved damages, contending that officers violated her right to procedural due process, and that it had caused her PTSD and more severe panic, and anxiety, embarrassment, and injury to her reputation in her professional community, as part of her claim for relief that, in the court officers committing the actions alleged, the officers and ‘AMKF’ was motivated by bad faith and selfish personal gain by unjust enrichment.
Because there’s no other reasonable remedy at law to cure injustices such as this case presents (due to the complex disabilities of the victim of abuse) Defendant prays this court will grant her A ONE HOUR hearing that the records have a meaningful and full investigation of the Fraud - Perjury that is shown so clearly in the Appendix # 31.000 showing A.M.K.F. entered false statements in prior Complaint that most clearly affects this case.”
Due to the perjury used in that Complaint, orders from that Complaint are voidable and should be declare invalid, and the Petitioner charged with Perjury under the Rule of Law.
These injustices and the unconstitutional actions used by the Plaintiff. are against the Rule of Law. The Constitution clearly says that our citizens have equal access to the Nations Courts proclaiming even disabled citizens have rights to access courts, and justice is not to be for sale, and justice is not to be denied insolvent citizens, while giving justice to the affluent or wealthy citizens
any suggestions ?
a claim of discrimination under the Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that obliges this court to review the case de novo, and construe or ‘straighten out’ all facts in favor of the non-moving party. In this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, EJF has alleged that she was (1) deprived of a federal right, privilege, or immunity (2) by persons acting under color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 638 (1980) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The federal right in question here is derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause provides that: “no State shall . . . deny to any persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” U. S. C. amend. XIV, § 1. In so providing, “the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a ‘class of one’ where the plaintiff did not allege membership in a class or group.” Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). “Successful equal protection claims brought by a ‘class of one’ ” have been recognized “where the citizen alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Olech, 528 U.S. at 564.
Defendant is alleging a class of one- equal protection claim is being ignored by this court in this case as court officers did in the last cases. See Olech, 528 U.S. at 564 n.*
This Court seems to be turning a blind eye to overwhelming evidence
Based on the foregoing factual allegations, EJF asserts she has proved damages, contending that officers violated her right to procedural due process, and that it had caused her PTSD and more severe panic, and anxiety, embarrassment, and injury to her reputation in her professional community, as part of her claim for relief that, in the court officers committing the actions alleged, the officers and ‘AMKF’ was motivated by bad faith and selfish personal gain by unjust enrichment.
Because there’s no other reasonable remedy at law to cure injustices such as this case presents (due to the complex disabilities of the victim of abuse) Defendant prays this court will grant her A ONE HOUR hearing that the records have a meaningful and full investigation of the Fraud - Perjury that is shown so clearly in the Appendix # 31.000 showing A.M.K.F. entered false statements in prior Complaint that most clearly affects this case.”
Due to the perjury used in that Complaint, orders from that Complaint are voidable and should be declare invalid, and the Petitioner charged with Perjury under the Rule of Law.
These injustices and the unconstitutional actions used by the Plaintiff. are against the Rule of Law. The Constitution clearly says that our citizens have equal access to the Nations Courts proclaiming even disabled citizens have rights to access courts, and justice is not to be for sale, and justice is not to be denied insolvent citizens, while giving justice to the affluent or wealthy citizens
any suggestions ?