By Zana Holley Dupee, Esq.
As written previously in this blog, the homestead is a very valuable asset in Florida. It enjoys protection from creditors’ claims, and it gets a special tax exemption so less real estate taxes are paid on homestead property. There have been some new cases decided in Florida courts that further explain homestead rights.
The first case is DiGiorgio v. DiGiorgio. This case stands for the rule that your ex cannot force sale of your new Florida residence to pay for past due child support or other money owed from a divorce judgment. In this case, the wife argued that the ex-husband should not get homestead protection because the Ohio divorce judgment had been awarded prior to the ex-husband moving into and residing on the Florida property. The court said that she was wrong. The court determined that the ex-husband is correct that the levy and execution of the parties' property may be barred by the protection of homestead. If the evidence shows that the property is the husband’s residence, then the property is protected from forced sale to satisfy the divorce judgment.
The second case is De La Mora v. Andonie. This case stands for the rule that the property tax appraiser should give a homestead tax exemption to the owners of residential real estate on the basis that their children are U.S. citizens, even if the owners are aliens who don’t qualify for “permanent residence” status that would entitle them to the homestead exemption. The Florida court stated that the plain language of article VII, section 6(a) of the Florida Constitution provides that an owner of residential real estate in Florida is constitutionally entitled to an exemption from ad valorem taxation—more accurately, a reduction in the assessed value—under either of the following two separate and independent scenarios: 1. Where the owner of the property is a permanent resident on the property, or 2. Where someone legally or naturally dependent on the owner is a permanent resident on the subject property.
The third case is In Re Williams. This is a bankruptcy case where the homestead property was owned as a life estate by the mother of the bankrupt. The bankrupt owned a remainder interest in the property. The bankrupt lived in the home with his mother and claimed that his remainder should be considered exempt homestead property in the bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy court found that the remainder interest should receive homestead protection in this case where the bankrupt resides on the property. The court noted that Florida courts consistently hold that the homestead exemption “should be liberally construed in favor of protecting the family home and those whom it was designed to protect.” Southern Walls, Inc. v. Stilwell Corporation, 810 So.2d 566, 569–70 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). See also Coy v. Mango Bay Property and Investments, Inc., 963 So.2d 873, 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The purpose of the homestead exemption “is to promote the stability and welfare of the state by securing to the householder a home, so that the homeowner and his or her heirs may live beyond the reach of financial misfortune and the demands of creditors.” Snyder v. Davis, 699 So.2d 999, 1002 (Fla.1997).
The fourth case is C&M Inv. Group, Ltd. V. Campbell. This case shows that there is a limit to when the court will protect homestead property. In this case, the homestead property was purchased by funds that were obtained by fraud. In this case, the Florida court found that the homestead purchased with fraudulent funds was NOT protected.
If you have any questions about your homestead rights, or if you need assistance with real estate, probate or trust litigation, you can call Zana Holley Dupee to schedule a consultation at (352) 379-5900.
Comments