Whether wittingly or unintentionally, the Debtors have benefitted in this claim objection by electing not to defend that case. 11 . Aeacus Real Estate Ltd. P’ship v. 5th Ave. Real Estate Dev., Inc., 948 So.2d 834, 836 (Fla.4th DCA 2007); State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 291-92 (Fla.2003) (stating that neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel will be invoked where their application would defeat the ends of justice or result in a manifest injustice). 12 . While neither party has framed the issue before the Court as a constructively fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B), the Court acknowledges the potential for such a claim. See BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 536, 114 S.Ct. 1757, 128 L.Ed.2d 556 (1994); In re Pantani, 377 B.R. 28, 30-31 (Bankr.D.Conn.2007) (<HOLDING>); Geddes v. Mayhall Enters., LLC (In re Jones),
holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary holding that where the debtor did not act but merely had knowledge of and benefit from the fraudulent transfer he was not considered to have performed it holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent recognizing potential for fraudulent transfer in foreclosure context if debtor enjoyed significant equity in property but received little or no value from the transfer