Thompson v. Hibner

705 So. 2d 36, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13297, 1997 WL 730842
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 26, 1997
DocketNo. 97-1108
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 705 So. 2d 36 (Thompson v. Hibner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thompson v. Hibner, 705 So. 2d 36, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13297, 1997 WL 730842 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

SHEVIN, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal a final summary judgment determining that defendant’s property is entitled to homestead exemption. We affirm.

Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition of defendant’s predecessor in title from evidence when it ruled on the summary judgment motion. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court should have considered the deposition in determining the entitlement to homestead status, the error is harmless. Although the “general rule [provides] that homestead protection should not extend to [severable] income producing portions of the debtor’s property,” First Leasing & Funding of Fla., Inc. v. Fiedler, 591 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), that rule is clearly not dispositive of this case. In the 1989 deposition, the predecessor in title testified that he had used the separate structure at the rear of the property as a corporate office for Deep Sea Fisheries, Inc. However, that testimony fails [37]*37to establish the non-homestead status of the separate structure. Notwithstanding the use of the structure set forth in the 1989 deposition, this evidence does not prove the use of the structure in 1991 when plaintiffs obtained the judgments sued upon. The record indicates that the corporation was not income producing after 1990. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the corporation was inactive at that time: Deep Sea Fisheries, Inc., was administratively dissolved on Nov. 9, 1990.1 As the record does not demonstrate that the separate structure was used as a business office when plaintiffs obtained the judgments, the trial court properly ruled that the defendant was entitled to homestead exemption status. See Edward Leasing Corp. v. Uhlig, 652 F.Supp. 1409 (S.D.Fla.1987). Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment.

Affirmed^

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Wilson
393 B.R. 778 (S.D. Florida, 2008)
In Re Ballato
318 B.R. 205 (M.D. Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
705 So. 2d 36, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13297, 1997 WL 730842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-hibner-fladistctapp-1997.