the specter that P&L or the alleged joint venture may have had “actual possession and control” over the portion of the property that was negligently maintained—which would shift liability from Defendant to P&L or the joint venture. See Trainor v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass’n, 211 So.3d 366, 368 (Fla. 6th Dist. Ct. App. 2017). But the allegations do not conclusively establish that P&L or the joint venture had such control, and they instead pin premises liability only on Defendant. So, taking all doubts and uncertainty in favor of Defendant, Augustave alleged at least one theory of negligence liability that arose out of Defendant’s conduct—its ownership and maintenance of its property. See, e.g., Biltmore Const. Co., Inc. v. Owners Ins, Co., 842 So.2d 947, 949 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (<HOLDING>). ' The district court came to the opposite
holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property holding wife who was not the original signor could include property in plan because it was community property holding that although allegations were not specific as to what property was damaged they could be fairly read to include property covered by the insurance policy holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate