Can Separate Houses Constitute One Homestead?
An email posed an unusual question about homestead protection of contingent improved residential properties. The writer owned land which initially consisted of separate lots but which he joined legally into a single parcel. On each side of the parcel he built two separated residential buildings. Assume that the lots could be legally separated back to separate parcels. The writer states that he uses both houses as a principal residence although he did not say whether either house was a primary residence. I inferred that both structures were used by the writer and his family for day to day family life. The question is whether homestead protection would apply to both buildings.
In most cases where a debtor owns adjoining buildings one of the buildings is the debtor's residence and the other is a rental or other investment property. A debtor can only have one house as his primary residence. Houses that are physically connected, even nominally connected by, for example, a fence, are usually considered to be a single connected structure. On the other hand, a debtor who has buildings on a single lot which are all used for residential purposes by the debtor's family would usually constitute a single homestead.
In this instance, I believe the facts on balance would support homestead protection for both of the buildings on the writer's property. Although the two houses are detached, both buildings are on what is now a single residential lot, and both buildings together constitute the primary residence of the writer and his family. Homestead protection is generously construed in favor of the homeowner; I think in this unique fact situation homestead should apply.
posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida
There is a case I came across some time ago that may shed some light & that appears to support your opinion (although the case is not exactly on point with your situation).
Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Insurance, Inc. 207 So. 2d 431; (Fla. 1968).
The Fla. Sup Ct decided that a homeowner was allowed to exempt from forced sale vacant land that he acquired, so long as the land was CONTIGUOUS to his then-existing homestead & the total size of the contiguous lots fell within the maximum size limitations of the Fla. Const. Article X Sec. 4.
(It seems to me that if you can extend the exemption to include unimproved land that is contiguous to a lot containing your home, as in this case, you can probably extend it with improved realty as well, provided that the lots are contiguous, fall within the Fla. Const. size limitations, and provided that the entire contiguous realty is used, in good faith, as your homestead (in my view, good faith is the key).
Also there is a Fla. Attny General Opinion AGO-2003-08, in the context of the homestead tax exemption (under Fla. Const. Article VII Sec. 6)that appears to say that it is possible to have multiple contiguous lots (& it doesn't seem to matter whether you bought them all at one time or bought the lots at different times) and qualify for the homestead tax exemption for all the lots.
The link for this opinion follows:
http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/60652F9EA0F5E30785256CF6004A98D5
Rich
The Home Equity Theft Reporter
http://HomeEquityTheft.blogspot.com
Does this only apply in Florida, or is it federal?
what if the 2 contiguous lots with 2 separate residental homes, were owned, and used by a single male??? The property, both lots & square footage of both residences was legally joined for tax homestead over 10 years ago, as the original residence was too small @ approx. 900 sq. ft. for comfort, & has not been rented, but actually used by the owner in good faith.......Can 1 single person be considered protected???....a question was presented as to which house was primary, where do you sleep??? ..should that make a differnce???...the reply was both residences.....
These is are good questions brought up, It's been 3 1/2 years since this post, with no response....Any ideas or case laws??.., .the County Sheriff has levied both the buildings & lots for auction by clerical error, instead of just a levy for auction on just 1 lot, as described to the court,a 50+ yr. old plot description by the sly attorney seeking the Judge's signing of the levy sale order....The sheriff states that only a judge's court order can stop the sale of both lots & buildings, even though it is a clerical error from the original court order...The sheriff's clerk, not able to find any separate tax id #, has taken from the current county property appraisors office records.the Tax ID # that lists both lots as 1 homesteaded property.....Notice of homestead has been recorded both in county records, court records,& certified mailings to the judgement attorney....How does he stop the forced auction?? . .