Dejesus v. A.M.J.R.K., Corp.

Dejesus v. A.M.J.R.K., Corp., 255 So.3d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

In this 2nd DCA case, the Court considered whether the homestead exemption on real property could be held by a corporation.  It held that the homestead exemption does not inure to a person residing on property, where that property is solely owned by a corporation.

As a refresher, Article X, section 4(a) of the Florida Constitution, provides as follows:

"There shall be exempt from forced sale under process of any court, and no judgment, decree[,] or execution shall be a lien thereon, ... property owned by a natural person." (emphasis added)

The Court held that the plain language of the Florida Constitution requires that the owner of property be a natural person in order to claim the homestead exemption.  The Court disagreed with the trial court's position that homestead status attached to the property because a natural person resided there. The trial court relied on Callava v.  Feinberg, 864 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), wherein the court stated that, "Florida law does not require that a person be the owner of a homestead property to be protected by the Florida constitution." 

The Court found the facts in Callava distinguishable. In Callava, the judgment debtor seeking homestead protection was the beneficiary of a trust which owned the real property in question. Thus, the debtor owned a beneficial interest in the property.  Here, even though the debtor was the president and sole shareholder of the corporation which owned the real property, because a stockholder does not have vested in them title to the property, the debtor did not have an actual interest in the corporation's property. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more