The Courts Rule on an Important Homestead Case
In certain states, homeowners can take advantage of what’s called a homestead exemption. This exemption permits a homeowner to protect the value of one’s principal residence from creditors and property taxes. The amount of property taxes which can be shielded (known as the homestead exemption) varies from state to state. In Florida, for example, the first fifty thousand dollars of a home’s assessed value can be exempted from all property taxes. With this exemption, you will only owe taxes on the home’s remaining assessed value.
The only caveat placed on the homesteader is that the domicile must be the primary residence. And this is precisely what was tested recently in the courts. The case involved Broward County resident, Venice Endsley, who along with her late husband, Robert Endsley, had homesteads in two states. Mr. Endsley was listed as the owner on a property in Huntington Indiana, while Ms. Endsley was registered as the owner of a Florida property in Lauderdale-By-The-Sea. Therefore, the couple had generous tax exemptions on each of their respective properties.
Broward County became aware of the situation in 2006. The Broward County property appraiser argued in court that Ms. Endsley was not entitled to a Florida homestead exemption because her husband already had one in another state, and that it was impossible to have two primary residences. The defendant argued that since the homesteads were in different states, it should be allowed.
In March, the 4th District Court of Appeals delved into the question of whether state law only barred multiple homesteads in the same state. In its decision, the court sided with the property appraiser, ruling that the Florida constitution only allowed one homestead exemption to be claimed, regardless of how many states were involved. The three-judge panel upheld a decision by a Broward County circuit judge who found that, “The Endsleys were a single-family unit and could not claim separate homestead exemptions.” The appeals court issued a ruling upholding the lower court decision: “The trial court found that the plain language of the provision meant that only one homestead exemption was allowed, regardless of location.” The ruling written by appeals court judge, Alan Forst, (and agreed to by the other two judges on the panel) stated that: “The meaning of the constitution’s command that not more than one exemption shall be allowed any individual or family unit appears clear on the face of the document.”
Venice Endsley then asked the Florida Supreme court to consider the case. But the state’s top court turned down the appeal, and refused to hear the case, thereby letting the earlier court rulings stand.