it spent, to be able to re-sell that property for over one million dollars. 96 . 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(4) (2015) (emphasis added). 97 . In re Cook, 460 B.R. 911, 912 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.2011), vacated, Centennial Bank v. Cook, No 12-00008-MP-GRI (N.D.Fla. Sept. 26, 2012), on remand, In re Cook, No. 11-50287-KKS (Bankr.N.D.Fla. Dec. 02, 2013) (Doc. 320); In re Garcia, No. 09-33208-LMI, 2010 WL 2697020 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2010). 98 . In re Cook, No. 11-50287-KKS (Bankr. N.D.Fl. Dec. 02, 2013) (Doc. 320, at 8). 99 . In re Garcia, 2010 WL 2697020 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2010) (citing In re Weinstein, 164 F.3d 677, 683 (1st Cir.1999) ("[T]he state's ability to define its exemptions is not absolute and must yield to conflicting policies in the Bankruptcy Code.”); In re Maddox, 15 F.3d 1347, 1351 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Opperman, 943 F.2d 441, 443 (4th
holding that consumer lien avoidance powers of section 522f cannot be applied retroactively holding that in light of the statutory framework created by the code  522f lien avoidance cannot be made subject to any subsequent event holding that lien avoidance under  522f is not limited by state exemptions holding that a debtors ability to utilize  522f to avoid a judicial lien is not dependent upon the debtor receiving a discharge   holding that the debtor must have had an interest in the property before the lien attached to take advantage of  522f