Florida Asset Protection : Asset Protection Law & Planning in Florida - Florida Homestead Exemption

The state of Massachusetts is serious about collecting corporate income taxes. An owner of a bankrupt Massachusetts corporation learned about Massachusetts corporate tax collection when he tried to renew his Florida drivers’s license. At attorney wrote me an email about one of his clients who was a principal owner of a Massachusetts corporation doing business in that state. The business owed corporate taxes to the state. The client owner owed no personal taxes. The attorney’s client resides permanently in Florida.

Massachusetts law enables the state to suspend your driver’s license if you don’t pay state taxes. The law makes principal owners of a corporation liable for the corporation’s income tax. After this client’s corporation filed bankruptcy owing state corporate income tax the state of Massachusetts listed the individual principal on a national registry of corporate tax deadbeats. It turns out that Florida checks the national registry, and our state respects suspensions imposed by other states for tax liability. This unsuspecting owner of a failed Massachusetts business finds himself unable to drive in Florida or Massachusetts until he pays his bankrupt corporation’s state income tax.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Effective asset protection planning requires anticipation of what creditors’ attorneys may and will do to collect their judgments. The best way to learn creditor attorney strategy is to ask them. My social relationships with creditor attorneys are very valuable to me professionally, as well as personally, because they give me the opportunity to learn about their methods.

I recently had a lunch with one of Orlando’s preeminent collection lawyers. We discussed collection practices and asset protection strategy, and I found some of his comments to be interesting. I asked him what was the most effective debt collection tool. His answer was, without hesitation: bank account garnishments. Bank garnishments, he explained, was the only way to capture a significant amount of a debtor’s cash quickly and without lengthy legal proceedings. Bank accounts are where the money is. Bank garnishments strike a surprise blow to debtors which freeze their funds and usually force them to settle the remaining debt.

I next asked him whether wage garnishments were effective assuming the debtor is not head of household. He said that garnishments were not a good collection tool. First, the creditor collects small amounts of money each month toward the judgment, and his clients are not interested in long-term payback. Next, he explained, that wage garnishments usually force debtors to file bankruptcy because debtors will not work for an indeterminate future for the benefit of creditors. Wage garnishment, he felt, usually backfire against his clients' debt collection.

Many of my clients spend much time asking about charging liens a creditor could get against their LLC which operates their small business. This creditor attorney has not sought a single charging lien for many years. He cannot recall the last time he used a charging lien. From the creditor perspective, he explained, charging liens are ineffective against an LLC business managed by the debtor or the debtor’s family. The attorney explained that charging lien collection against a closely held LLC depends upon the honesty of the debtor; the creditor collects money only if the debtor voluntarily reports an LLC distribution subject to the lien. He found that most debtor LLC owners circumvent the charging lien with salary and loans, and that neither he nor his clients are able to monitor effectively the Debtor LLC distribution practices. It seems that an LLC properly formed and clear of fraudulent transfer challenges is practically a very effective asset protection too.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Florida statutes exempt retirement pensions from creditor claims. Courts have protected pension distributions after they were deposited in financial accounts. This week a Florida resident with an English accent called me with asset protection questions. On of his assets is a pension from an English company which he earned while working for many years in England. He assumed that his English pension is safe from creditors. I told him I disagreed, and that I think his creditors could garnish the pension ( they may have to go to England to do so), or his creditors could levy upon pension payments after they were deposited in a U.S. checking account. Why is an English pension not a protected pension?

The Florida statutes do not include a blanket exemption of all pension and retirement accounts as they do for all annuities. The applicable statute exempts only those statutes authorized by a list of specific Internal Revenue Code sections. The list of Code sections applies to certain retirement plans which are tax deferred under the Code. The U.S. revenue law has no tax deferral provisions for retirement plans established in other countries under their own tax laws. Pension plans set up pursuant to England’s tax law are not referred to in Florida’s laws, and therefore, this caller’s English pension and the payments therefrom are not exempt in Florida.

 

 

posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An attorney asked me for my opinion about his debtor client who was put on the legal title to his parents’ house. His mother and father added the client, their only son, to their homestead deed as a joint tenant with rights of survivorship for estate planning purposes. When both parents die the title automatically passes to the surviving son. (Title would vest in the son anyway under Florida’s homestead laws without the son being on title.). The parents paid off the mortgage. The son never paid any money toward the purchase or maintenance of the parent’s house. The son does not live in the house with his parents. One of the son’s creditors got a civil judgment against him. The attorney wants to know if the son’s creditors can levy upon the son’s interest in the house and force a sale of the home.

I’ve advised many times in this blog that parents should not add their children to their property titles because a judgment against the child could jeopardize the parents’ assets. This is another example of that risk. However, in this case I think the parents’ house is safe. Because the son has invested no money in the house nor given his parents any consideration for putting his name on the title the son has no equitable interest in the house. He has what is called “bare legal title.” The son has no right to money received from the sale or financing of the house, and his creditors can gain no greater rights than the son holds in the property. I think a judge would recognize that the son is on the title as an estate planning device and that the parents did not intend a present gift of any interest in or rights to the house. The creditors cannot get what the debtor does not have- I think the house is safe.

But, there are many ways this type of planning can turn out badly. There certainly is no guarantee a judge will rule the same way I interpret this transaction. As a practical matter the parents have put their homestead at risk. This family engaged in amateur estate planning without legal advice. Penny wise, pound foolish.
 

 

posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A client asked me two homestead questions which questions I have previously heard from other clients or email inquiries. This client owned a homestead with significant equity within a municipality. Homestead properties within a city up to ½ acre in lot size are protected under the Florida Constitution. The client said he intended to buy a ½ acre lot adjoining this existing homestead as an investment, and he wanted to know if the lot would be protected from creditors. My opinion is that the lot purchase would jeopardize the homestead protection of his existing house. Homestead includes the property upon which your residence is located as well as all contiguous land. If the client purchased the adjoining lot and took title in his own name the adjoining lot would be incorporated into his homestead and the size of his entire homestead would increase from ½ acre to a full acre. Thereafter, only 50% of the total homestead would be protected within the city limits. The client could not apportion protection to the original lot on which the house is situated. The purchase of the contiguous lot in his own name would forfeit protection of 50% of his house value. A better strategy would be to form a limited liability company and have the LLC purchase the adjoining lot. Because the client does not personally own the new lot it would not add to the size of his homestead. Land owned by entities, as opposed to natural persons, cannot be homestead property. The LLC would give some, although imperfect, asset protection.

 

The second question concerned the bankruptcy rule that requires a bankruptcy debtor to own a homestead property for 40 months in order to get unlimited homestead protection in bankruptcy court. If a debtor owns homestead 1, sells homestead 1 for a profit, invests the profit in homestead 2, and then files bankruptcy, the time of homestead includes ownership of homestead 1. A client posed the following question: the client owned homestead A for many years. During the real estate crash he did a short-sale of homestead A and immediately purchased homestead B with new money. The client believes that since he can continuously owned a Florida homestead, including A and B, for more than 40 months he should have unlimited homestead exemption in homestead B. I don't think the law is intended to add the ownership period of homesteads A and B in this example because no equity from A was invested in B. Ownership periods are grandfathered when the debtor transferred equity (sales proceeds) from one homestead to a new homestead. Investment of money other than homestead sales proceeds begins anew the ownership clock for purposes of the Florida homestead exemption- that's my interpretation.

posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

I dealt with an interesting question today about alimony and support questions. Sometimes people ask me if there are asset protection tools to guard against awards for payment of alimony or support (generally, the answer is "no") or what types of assets are vulnerable to enforce family court judgments. Today's issue was different. A divorced woman was facing a large civil judgment. The divorce court awarded the woman alimony, and her ex-husband sent her monthly alimony checks. The woman depended upon the alimony to pay her basic costs of living. She wanted to know if a judgment creditor could garnish the alimony payments from the ex-husband.

Florida statute Chapter 222 which lists the asset exemptions applicable to Florida residents does not include an exemption for alimony or support. There is no exemption in the Florida constitution nor under federal law. Florida courts, however, have protected alimony and support from garnishment. One court held that alimony was not the type of debt or obligation subject to garnishment, and that public policy calls for the protection of alimony and support. See Waters 547 So 2d 197 . At least one bankruptcy court recognized this garnishment exemption.

posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link