A short-term IRS program that ignores lender-forgiven mortgage debt ends Dec. 31; if you need to short sale your home, you should consider listing now!

You may owe federal income taxes in 2013 if you have a short sale, foreclosure after this year. Now is the time to make the hard decision: Are you going to walk away from your underwater home?

Uncle Sam is still giving homeowners until Dec. 31, 2012, to go through a short sale or foreclosure without tax consequences – as long as the lender officially releases the debt.

But on Jan. 1, 2013, the rules change: The amount a lender forgives, ether in a short sale or foreclosure, on a primary residence will be taxable on federal income taxes.

If a bank writes off debt in a short sale, it’s a “taxable event,” and the lender tells the Internal Revenue Service about the deal by submitting a “Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt” at the end of the year. Home sellers must acknowledge the amount when they fill out their federal taxes.

So if a house sold $50,000 short of what is owed on the mortgage, then the selling homeowners will owe federal income taxes on that $50,000. Homeowners would owe $12,500 if they’re in the 25 percent bracket; $7,500 if in the 15 percent tax section.

Homeowners would be on the hook even if the house sold but the bank had not formally forgiven the loan in a letter: The banks must officially sign off in writing before Dec. 31.

“It’s a huge issue – it will be a shock to many taxpayers after 2012,” said Mark Steber, the Florida-based chief tax officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Service.

The law first came into affect five years ago as the housing market went bust nationwide.

The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 “generally allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence,” according to the Internal Revenue Service. “Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief.”

Up to $2 million of forgiven debt can be forgiven this year, $1 million if married and filing separately, according to the IRS.

Homeowners declaring bankruptcy could escape paying income taxes on any cancellation of debt income if the debt is forgiven in the bankruptcy even if the debtor is solvent, said Nick Jovanovich, a board-certified tax attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“Bankruptcy trumps everything,” he said.

Or homeowners might not have to pay income taxes on any cancellation of debt income to the extent that they are insolvent immediately before the cancellation – that is, their debts exceed the value of their assets, Jovanovich added.

Steber and Jovanovich said homeowners should decide now what they are going to do – to give themselves time.

Are you considerung a short sale? Contact us today for a consultation:

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• Bradenton / Sarasota ranks high in online interest
• $7,500 First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit
• short sale

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Waterfor Plantation homes for sale | Carolina Forest Real Estate  (Myrtle Beach Area Real Estate)
• Bay Meadows  (Myrtle Beach Area Real Estate)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

The Tax Foundation says it looks at dozens of state tax provisions to create the ranking –a single easy-to-use score that measures each state’s tax climate against every other state. While some similar studies focus on residents’ tax burden they pay each year, the Index focuses on how a tax system enhances or harms a state’s businesses.

“Even in our global economy, a state’s stiffest and most direct competition often comes from other states,” says Tax Foundation economist Mark Robyn. “State lawmakers need to be aware of how their states’ business climates match up to their immediate neighbors and to other states in their region.”

The 10 best states in this year’s Index
1. Wyoming
2. South Dakota
3. Nevada
4. Alaska
5. Florida
6. New Hampshire
7. Washington
8. Montana
9. Texas
10. Utah

The 10 lowest ranked states in this year’s Index
41. Iowa
42. Maryland
43. Wisconsin
44. North Carolina
45. Minnesota
46. Rhode Island
47. Vermont
48. California
49. New York
50. New Jersey

The Tax Foundation has monitored fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. A copy of the latest report is available on the Tax Foundation’s website.

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• Vacation Home in West Bradenton, 2BR/2.5 BA or 1BR/1BA
• Perico Island Pool Home – $299,900
• Bradenton / Sarasota ranks high in online interest

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Fresh Healthy Vending Feeds Green Franchise and Job Opportunities  (U.S. Green Technology)
• Tankless Water Heaters: Good Green Technology Investments?  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

Florida-owned Citizens Property Insurance can increase its rates no more than 10 percent per year, but the company has two options that allow it to raise rates without impacting that cap: nixing discounts some homeowners receive for hurricane mitigation efforts and increasing a home’s replacement cost in the premium calculation. And they use both of them!

Hurricane mitigation discounts

Florida homeowners get a property insurance discount if their home has added features that help lower potential damage from a storm. To receive the discounts, homes must first be inspected, and a number of policyholders have done so. However, Citizens claims that the original inspections have listed hurricane mitigation upgrades that don’t exist, and many homeowners don’t deserve the discount.

As a result, Citizens is reinspecting homes, and, according to the Palm Beach Post, only about one in three homeowners keeps a hurricane mitigation discount after the reinspection. About 78,000 Florida homeowners have been reinspected so far, and the ones that lose a discount end up paying about 24 percent more – an additional average of $717 per year. Up to 200,000 total homes are slated for reinspection before the end of 2012.

Replacement costs

Even though home values have decreased, many owners have watched their replacement cost, I have warned about this practic more than once – the amount it would take to rebuild a destroyed home following a disaster – increase. And as the replacement cost increases, the cost of property insurance increases. For some policyholders, their home’s replacement cost is double its value in today’s market. So the insurance lets you insure for twice the amount they are actually paying in case of a disaster.

Citizens says it used a private vendor, 360Value, to calculate replacement costs. However, Citizens says it will reevaluate the calculations for South Florida and Tampa homeowners this month.

“In light of publicly expressed concerns about some of the replacement cost valuations generated by 360Value, Citizens will supplement its normal contract monitoring to include a targeted review to validate the accuracy of 360Value outputs,” Citizens said in a release.

Our tip: Get an appraisal showing the correct value. Usually this can be a an exterior appraisal costing less than $100. Talk to a knowledgeable Realtor or call us about this issue, most insurance agents are unable or unwillingly to assist you here. We are assisting our clients and past clients in each aspect of home ownership.

Sea to Sky Realty
Axel Weiss, Broker
(941) 866 1666
Contact

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• Bradenton/Sarasota among the top 3 destinations of foreign home buyers
• Results of Luxury Real Estate Auction in Sarasota
• Reasons to Buy in a Down Market

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Bay Meadows  (Myrtle Beach Area Real Estate)
• Turnberry Park  (Myrtle Beach Area Real Estate)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

Here are two main tax credits available for those interested in making energy efficient improvements to their homes:

1. Wind, solar, geothermal and fuel cell tax credit: This tax credit is available for existing homes and new construction. Homeowners can receive a credit up to 30 percent off the cost of their improvements between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31 this year. The following green updates qualify: Geothermal heat pumps, solar panels, solar water heaters, small wind energy systems, and fuel cells.

2. Qualified energy efficiency improvements: This credit gives a 10 percent tax credit for purchases “placed in service” between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2011. The maximum credit for a taxpayer for all taxable years is $500, and no more than $200 of such credit may be attributable to expenditures on windows. This rule means that taxpayers who have claimed $500 or more of this tax credit in prior years, particularly 2009 and 2010, can no longer participate in the program.

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• - Sea to Sky Realty . The international Florida Real Estate Company
• $7,500 First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit
• Bradenton/Sarasota among the top 3 destinations of foreign home buyers

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Kick The Car Habit With Ridekick Electric Bicycle Trailer  (U.S. Green Technology)
• Green Technology Will Come to the Economy’s Rescue  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

Here’s an informative summary of and commentary about your property taxes:

Tax Notices are Here but What do They Really Tell Us?

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• - Sea to Sky Realty . The international Florida Real Estate Company
• $7,500 First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit
• Bradenton/Sarasota among the top 3 destinations of foreign home buyers

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Kick The Car Habit With Ridekick Electric Bicycle Trailer  (U.S. Green Technology)
• Green Technology Will Come to the Economy’s Rescue  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

1. Move must be closely related to start of work Generally, you can consider moving expenses incurred within one year from the date you first reported to a new location, as closely related in time to the start of work.
2. Distance Test Your move meets the distance test if your new main job location is at least 50 miles farther from your former home than your previous job location was.
3. Time Test You must work full time for at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months after you arrive in the general area of your new job location, or at least 78 weeks during the first 24 months if you are self-employed. If your income tax return is due before you’ve satisfied this requirement, you can still deduct your allowable moving expenses if you expect to meet the time test in the following years.
4. Travel You can deduct lodging expenses for yourself and household members while moving from your former home to your new home. You can also deduct transportation expenses, including airfare, vehicle mileage, parking fees and tolls you pay to move, but you can only deduct one trip per person.
5. Household goods You can deduct the cost of packing, crating and transporting your household goods and personal property. You may be able to include the cost of storing and insuring these items while in transit.
6. Utilities You can deduct the costs of connecting or disconnecting utilities.
7. Nondeductible expenses You cannot deduct as moving expenses: any part of the purchase price of your new home, car tags, drivers license, costs of buying or selling a home, expenses of entering into or breaking a lease, security deposits and storage charges except those incurred in transit.
8. Form You can deduct only those expenses that are reasonable for the circumstances of your move. To figure the amount of your moving expense deduction use Form 3903, Moving Expenses.
9. Reimbursed expenses If your employer reimburses you for the cost of the move, the reimbursement may have to be included on your income tax return.
10. Update your address When you move, be sure to update your address with the IRS and the U.S. Postal Service to ensure you receive refunds or correspondence from the IRS. Use Form 8822, Change of Address, to notify the IRS.

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• Sarasota – one of the most undervalued U.S. Cities
• The Home Selling Process
• Bradenton/Sarasota among the top 3 destinations of foreign home buyers

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Green Technology is Gold Mine for Investing  (U.S. Green Technology)
• Kick The Car Habit With Ridekick Electric Bicycle Trailer  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

If you have a gain from the sale of your main home, you may qualify to exclude all or part of that gain from your income. Here are ten tips from the IRS to keep in mind when selling your home.

1. In general, you are eligible to exclude the gain from income if you have owned and used your home as your main home for two years out of the five years prior to the date of its sale.
2. If you have a gain from the sale of your main home, you may be able to exclude up to $250,000 of the gain from your income ($500,000 on a joint return in most cases).
3. You are not eligible for the exclusion if you excluded the gain from the sale of another home during the two-year period prior to the sale of your home.
4. If you can exclude all of the gain, you do not need to report the sale on your tax return.
5. If you have a gain that cannot be excluded, it is taxable. You must report it on Form 1040, Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses.
6. You cannot deduct a loss from the sale of your main home.
7. Worksheets are included in Publication 523, Selling Your Home, to help you figure the adjusted basis of the home you sold, the gain (or loss) on the sale, and the gain that you can exclude.
8. If you have more than one home, you can exclude a gain only from the sale of your main home. You must pay tax on the gain from selling any other home. If you have two homes and live in both of them, your main home is ordinarily the one you live in most of the time.
9. If you received the first-time homebuyer credit and within 36 months of the date of purchase, the property is no longer used as your principal residence, you are required to repay the credit. Repayment of the full credit is due with the income tax return for the year the home ceased to be your principal residence, using Form 5405, First-Time Homebuyer Credit and Repayment of the Credit. The full amount of the credit is reflected as additional tax on that year’s tax return.
10. When you move, be sure to update your address with the IRS and the U.S. Postal Service to ensure you receive refunds or correspondence from the IRS. Use Form 8822, Change of Address, to notify the IRS of your address change.

If you are interested in selling your home please call us today at 941.866.1666 to set up a free consultation.

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• Sarasota – one of the most undervalued U.S. Cities
• - Sea to Sky Realty . The international Florida Real Estate Company
• Bradenton/Sarasota among the top 3 destinations of foreign home buyers

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Green Technology in 2011 Made Huge Leaps  (U.S. Green Technology)
• Green Technology is Gold Mine for Investing  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

The result: Hundreds of thousands who’ve already filed for the credit will have to give the money back.

More than 2.6 million eligible for the credit have bought homes since July 2008. They’ve received $19 billion in tax breaks.

But it turns out nearly half of those who received the money for the credit, claimed on their 2009 tax returns, will have to return it, according to an audit from the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

And a recording error could lead the IRS to ask tens of thousands more to return the money even though they are entitled to keep it.

This means anyone who bought a home in 2008 or later should make sure they applied for the correct credit and compensated accordingly. Paperwork should be checked, and buyers who are asked to repay need to double-check that, too.

Apparently, some mistakenly thought they qualified. Others tried to cheat the system, and the IRS failed to catch them until after the checks cashed.

About 950,000 of the nearly 1.8 million Americans who claimed the tax credit on their 2009 return should not have received the money.

Part of the confusion was because homebuyers were eligible for two different types of credits, depending on when their homes were purchased. The government’s first version of the credit was a no-interest loan of up to $7,500. It was required to be paid back over 15 years.

Congress eliminated the repayment requirement for homes bought in 2009, but those who claimed the credit for homes purchased in 2008 will still be required to repay it, beginning when they file their 2010 income tax return. Some who bought in 2008, the audit said, tricked the IRS into granting them the credit by lying about their closing date on their application.

But the IRS caused part of the problem. Apparently, it recorded the wrong home purchase date for about 73,000 that claimed the credit. That could mean some will be asked to pay back money they weren’t required to repay, the report said.

Here are some things to keep in mind if you haven’t yet claimed your credit or if you’re checking your paperwork.

• You don’t have to wait to claim your credit on your 2010 return if you bought this year. If you purchased a home before the April 30 deadline, you can amend your taxes to claim the credit.

• There are two credits available. One is for first-time buyers or those who have not owned a home in the past three years. The maximum for this credit is $8,000 and does not have to be paid back. It applies to purchases made this year between Jan. 1 and April 30.

• Some buyers who already owned homes can claim a credit worth up to $6,500 for purchases made between Nov. 7 and April 30. To qualify, the buyer must have owned a primary residence for at least five consecutive years out of the past eight years. This credit also does not need to be paid back.

• There are income and price requirements. If the home was purchased after Nov. 6, it can cost no more than $800,000. Also, if purchased after that date, individuals cannot earn more than $125,000 and married couples filing jointly cannot earn more than $225,000.

• If you’re claiming the credit, a paper filing is necessary. Only taxpayers not claiming the credit can file electronically. Buyers can still use electronic forms, but must print them out and mail them in, along with form 5405.

• Buyers must prove they are eligible. You’ll need to send a copy of the HUD settlement statement along with the tax form. If you’re claiming the longtime owner credit, also include proof, such as copies of mortgage interest statements, property tax records or homeowner’s insurance records.

• The credit is for your primary home. If you decide to rent or sell the home within three years, the credit must be repaid.

To read more about the IRS rules for the three tax credits, visit its website. For answers to specific questions regarding a home sale, buyers should contact a tax advisor.

It had been commonly understood that property owners who rent their entire dwelling for long periods of time forfeit the benefit of homestead. The underlying rationale for the termination of homestead due to long-term rentals is that the owner’s long-term rental activity, coupled with his or her implied absence from the property, signifies the owner’s intent to reside elsewhere. Therefore, the owner’s departure and residence elsewhere, coupled with the conversion of his or her home into a commercially oriented use (a rental), reveals an “intent” to abandon the homestead. (1)

By contrast, there are occasions when property owners do not intend to abandon their residence through rental. For example, numerous Floridians rent out their homes for short periods of time and may even remain on the premises during the course of these rentals. These short-term or seasonal renters are now finding themselves forced to defend their right to their homestead exemption, even when they still consider their home to be their permanent residence. The purpose of this article is to explore the effect of a rental on the homestead exemption and to recommend legislative revisions aimed at clarifying the permitted contours of rental activity in the context of a homestead abandonment case.
Early History of Abandonment of Homestead Through Rental

Florida courts have traditionally emphasized that a determination of homestead abandonment is made on a case-by-case basis. In particular, courts conduct a factual inquiry as to whether the owner’s rental activity constituted abandonment of the homestead. (2) Nevertheless, early cases and guidance from the Florida attorney general directly supported the preservation of homestead, even when the property owner engaged in rental.

In early cases in which homestead was restored, the homeowner had left personal property onsite and otherwise manifested an intent to return. (3) Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the subject emphasized that the owner’s continuous physical presence without interruption was not required to preserve homestead. (4)

The Legislative “Fix”

The Florida Legislature attempted to codify and clarify the early case law on abandonment through rental when it adopted FS. [section] 196.061(1996) (rental statute). The rental statute can be summarized as follows. The rental statute requires there to be a “rental.” Second, the rental must be of the “entire dwelling.” The rental of the entire dwelling constitutes an abandonment of the right to homestead. However, the statute contains an exception with an exception to the exception. The rental statute provides that property owners do not lose homestead if they had established homestead through permanent residency on January 1 of the year. (5) For example, if an owner of homesteaded property rented the dwelling on January 2, but had qualified for homestead on the first, homestead would not be lost for that year. However, this exception cannot be utilized for two consecutive years. (6) The rental statute is not the model of clarity and is ambiguous in several instances. As discussed more fully below, the rental statute does not define what a “rental” means or what constitutes the “entire dwelling.”

Deference in Statutory Construction

The threshold question in all ad valorem property tax disputes is whether the rules of construction of the applicable statutes favor the homeowner or the property appraiser. In large measure, the outcome of this inquiry depends on the nature of the tax exemption in question. Unlike the bulk of tax exemptions, the right to a homestead exemption sounds in the Florida Constitution. (7) The fact that homestead is a constitutional right in comparison with other nonconstitutional exemptions does not end the inquiry in favor of the property owner.

Florida courts have struggled with the burden of proof and deference due to property owners in homestead cases. As illustrated, the case law is somewhat inconsistent. However, it can safely be said that homestead is a “qualified constitutional right” because homestead must be applied for.

Florida courts have explained that the legislature may establish appropriate limits in terms of qualifying for the right to homestead. (8) For example, the Florida Legislature has established requirements for the application and processing of homestead applications. (9) Moreover, the legislature established criteria to be utilized for determining “permanent residency” (the threshold requirement for qualifying for homestead). (10) For example, in ES. [section] 196.015 (2009), the legislature provided property appraisers with criteria to utilize in determining permanent residency. The criteria include an assessment of the address provided on items such as a recorded sworn statement of domicile, voter registration, driver’s license, utility statements, bank statements, vehicular registration, and business licensure. (11)

However, in contrast to cases dependant on whether an owner qualifies for homestead (e.g., whether the owner meets the criteria of [section] 196.015), the rental statute appears to assume that the property owner has already established or qualified for homestead. The inquiry becomes whether the now established right to homestead has been abandoned. Lest there be any doubt on this point, the authors respectfully pose the following question: How can a right be “abandoned” if the owner had not qualified for the right to begin with? Moreover, recall that [section] 196.061 is entitled “Rental of homestead to constitute abandonment.” The distinction between qualifying for the right and having the established right taken away by deeming it abandoned is important because Florida courts have deferred to property appraisers in cases addressing the act of qualifying for homestead. By contrast, Florida courts have, with a few notable exceptions, zealously protected the established right to homestead.

There is a sizeable gulf between general tax exemption cases and cases interpreting the constitutional right to homestead. In cases addressing nonconstitutional exemptions, Florida courts have generally held that tax exemptions are to be construed against the individual claiming the exemption. (12) Therefore, the burden favors the property appraiser during the initial qualification phase. (13)

By contrast, once the right to homestead has been established, Florida and federal courts have generally been protective of the right in cases both when homestead is used as a shield against creditors and when the established right to homestead has been called into question. (14) A 2001 decision from the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2001), illustrates the deference given to the homeowner once homestead has been established. The Florida Supreme Court held:

[T]his Court’s homestead exemption jurisprudence has long been guided by a policy favoring the liberal construction of the exemption: “Organic and statutory provisions relating to homestead exemptions should be liberally construed in the interest of the family home. A concomitant in harmony with this rule of liberal construction is the rule of strict construction as applied to the exceptions. (15)

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Havoco was consistent with an earlier decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in the case of Poppell v. Padrick, 117 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). In that case, the property owners’ homestead status was restored when the owners rented their homesteaded property to live with their widowed mother for a number of months over the course of several years. (16) The Second District held:

Once the property has acquired the status of a homestead, this status would continue until an abandonment has occurred which being dependent upon the intent of the claimant, is a question of fact to be determined in each particular case…. (17)

In considering the question of whether a homestead status has been acquired or whether it has been abandoned, a court in its determination must be guided by certain fundamental principles. The constitutional and statutory provisions concerning homesteads should be interpreted in the liberal and beneficent spirit in which they were conceived and enacted in the interest of the family home. (18)

In what could be viewed as an emergent split from the Florida Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Havoco and the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Padrick, the First District Court of Appeal recently held that the rule of strict construction for nonconstitutional exemptions applies to the rental statute. In Haddock v. Carmody, 1 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the First District Court of Appeal held that the owner of a condominium on Amelia Island had abandoned homestead under the rental statute even though the owner had locked two closets prior to leaving the unit. (19) The property owner argued that it had not rented the “entire dwelling” and, therefore, the rental statute did not apply. (20)

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the First District held that the owner had abandoned his homestead for the years in question. (21) However, the First District went a step further and lumped cases involving the rental statute with other cases pertaining to the qualification for homestead. (22)

In this regard, an argument could be made that the First District’s holding in Haddock directly conflicts with the Second District’s earlier opinion in Padrick. Again, in Padrick, the Second District, relying on prior opinions from the Florida Supreme Court, had stated “[t]he constitutional and statutory provisions concerning homesteads should be interpreted in the liberal and beneficent spirit in which they were conceived and enacted in the interest of the family home.” (23)

It does not appear that the First District has attempted to create a volte face on the issue of statutory construction, especially when doing so would create a conflict with holdings of the Florida Supreme Court and other district courts. The authors respectfully submit that Haddock may be harmonized with other cases interpreting homestead. Put simply, Haddock should be read as a case where the sheer weight of the evidence mandated the revocation of homestead. However, as illustrated in Haddock, it can be said that the rental statute is ambiguous as it fails to provide definitions for the terms “rental” and “entire dwelling.”

Rental v. License

The rental statute uses the specific term “rental.” The term “rental” is a legal term of art which describes the act of granting possession of the property to another. In Florida, a rental is treated as being virtually identical to a lease. (24) As such, an argument could be made that the rental statute is not triggered when an owner allows an individual to stay on the property in which no residential tenancy has been created. For example, an owner may elect to issue a lesser form of permission to a guest by way of a license agreement. In the lease or rental paradigm, the owner and the tenant execute an agreement which gives the lessee or tenant exclusive use and possession of the premises for a set period of time. (25) By contrast, a license agreement gives the licensee or guest a privilege to enter upon the premises. Generally, licenses are revocable upon relatively short notice, disclaim the creation of a tenancy, and reserve to the owner a co-terminus right of access and entry to the premises. (26) The distinction between leases and licenses in application to a property tax case recently came to light in the case of Turner v. Florida State Fair Authority, 974 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

In Turner, the Florida State Fair Authority maintained tax-exempt status over certain parcels utilized for state fairs. (27) The State Fair Authority entered into an agreement with a truck driving school to utilize the property when fairs were not being held. (28) While the property appraiser argued that the lease to a private party terminated the tax-exempt status of the property, (29) the Second District Court of Appeal disagreed and concluded that it was a license. (30) The Second District held:

We conclude that the [a]greement is a license, not a lease. A license does not confer an interest in the land but merely gives the licensee the authority to do a particular act on another’s land. The distinction between the rights of a lessee and those of a licensee is as follows: A tenant under a lease is one who has been given possession of land which is “exclusive even of the landlord except as the lease permits his entry, and saving always the landlord’s right to enter to demand rent or to make repairs.”A licensee is one who has a “mere permission to use the land, dominion over it remaining in the owner and no interest in or exclusive possession of it being given” to the occupant. (31)

To date, the authors note that no case has squarely addressed whether a license agreement triggers the rental statute. Nevertheless, on the basis of Turner, practitioners should consider minimizing their client’s exposure to the loss of homestead by carefully structuring agreements in a manner that disclaims tenancy and creates a license as opposed to a lease or rental.

Entire Dwelling

The rental statute does not explicitly define what constitutes the “entire dwelling” of one’s homestead. Again, the Haddock court held that excluding two closets from a rental did not preserve homestead. (32) In reaching this conclusion, the First District rejected giving the term “entire dwelling” its literal meaning. (33) The First District reasoned that the literal meaning could lead to absurd results whereby the homeowner avoids application of the rental statute by excluding a de minimus portion of his or her prop property from rental. (34) However, it does not appear that the First District intended to simply ignore the words “entire dwelling,” as doing so would contravene a seminal rule of statutory construction requiring courts to give meaning to each word. (35)

By contrast, the tenor of the opinion suggests that the court did not want to reward a property owner who, in all respects, appeared to have abandoned homestead. (36) In particular, the owner’s unit was located on Amelia Island, which is commonly understood to be a resort-oriented community. (37) Second, the owner’s unit was placed into a corporate rental pool, and the owner had to act affirmatively to withdraw the unit for his personal use. (38) Last, the owner locked off two closets, which again the court appears to have treated as a de minimis amount of space. (39) As such, the First District refused to allow the homeowner to hang his hat on the singular argument that because a closet was locked off to tenants, the “entire dwelling” was not rented and, therefore, homestead was saved.

To harmonize Haddock with past homestead jurisprudence, the authors submit that Haddock should be viewed as providing a baseline. In particular, “entire dwelling” does not mean two closets where the totality of the circumstances militate against homestead (e.g., the presence of a corporate rental pool and the property’s location in a resort community). However, moving beyond the baseline, it is important to note that the term “entire dwelling” should be given its ordinary meaning. The question necessarily becomes whether “entire dwelling” means the living areas of the house (e.g., bedrooms) or if it simply means more than a de minimus amount of space.

Webster’s dictionary defines the term “entire” to mean “having no element or part left out,” “complete in degree,” “total,” or “consisting of one piece.” The authors are cognizant of the First District’s admonition against reading the rental statute too literally. However, the legislature has generously defined the term “dwelling” in at least two other sections of the Florida Statutes, and those definitions include the porch and curtialige of the property. (40)

Reading the terms “entire” and “dwelling” together, a good faith argument could be made that so long as the portion excluded is not de minimus, the rental statute should not apply. In this respect, Padrick and its progeny are instructive. In particular, the authors submit that the area and possessions excluded from rental should evince the owner’s intent to return to the home. Therefore, leaving only a small amount of clothing and personal effects in a limited area may militate in favor of finding for abandonment. In contrast, the owner who leaves the bulk of his or her possessions on site and locks such possessions in large walk-in closets could be viewed as maintaining an intent to return sufficient to defeat a claim of abandonment.

Although such a conclusion finds support in cases predating Haddock, it is expected that property appraisers will argue for a more stringent application of Haddock, and practitioners are again cautioned that courts render decisions on such matters on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusion

The authors believe that in the coming years, property appraisers will aggressively pursue the removal of homestead in which the homeowner has engaged in rental. However, the rental statute is ambiguous and does not provide homeowners with adequate guidance in terms of the nature of rentals and whether the entire dwelling must be rented. These ambiguities have been compounded by the First District’s decision in Haddock which superficially purports to unwind long-standing precedent from the Florida Supreme Court. (41) Although Haddock can be harmonized with past precedent, the rental statute, coupled with a literal reading of the Haddock opinion, creates a series of problems for homeowners. Moreover, the problem is not limited to the wealthy, but creates a lack of rental opportunities for individuals who cannot afford a home. (42)

The authors believe an overhaul of the statute would be in order for the purpose of codifying long-standing notions of protection and preservation of the family home. More specifically, the authors respectfully submit that the rental statute should be amended to address the following issues when considering whether a homestead has been abandoned through rental: 1) The property appraiser’s burden of proving the rental constituted an abandonment (once the owner has already qualified for the homestead exemption); 2) the definition of the term “rental”; 3) the definition of the phrase “entire dwelling”; 4) a list of factors which shall be considered by the property appraiser in determining whether the property owner has demonstrated an intent to return to the home; and 5) additional guidelines on some type of meaningful investigation which must be completed prior to the revocation of a property owner’s established homestead exemption.

Given the current economic climate, in which Floridians may, in some instances, be compelled to offer their homes for short-term or seasonal rentals in order to keep their homes, it would seem unjust to require the burden to fall on the homeowner after they have already established homestead. Rather, it would seem more appropriate to set specific guidelines for property appraisers so they are better equipped to make a determination that the property owner actually intended to abandon their homestead through rental. A legislative clarification would simply re-enforce the deference given to homeowners by the Florida Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in which the established right to homestead has been questioned.

(1) See Fla. Stat. [section] 196.012(13) (“Real estate used and owned as a ‘homestead’ means real property to the extent provided in s. 6(a), [a]rt. VII of the State Constitution, but less any portion thereof used for commercial purposes, with the title of such property being recorded in the official records of the county in which the property is located. Property rented for more than six months is presumed to be used for commercial purposes.”).

(2) See generally Poppell v. Padrick, 117 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1959); Jacksonville u. Bailey, 30 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1947). It should be noted that members of the armed forces who rent the homesteaded property due to active duty were deemed not to have involuntarily abandoned their homestead. See L’Engle v. Forbes, 81 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1955).

(3) See, e.g., Jacksonville v. Bailey, 30 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1947) (holding that homestead was not abandoned where the property owner resided in home for six years; the owner rented the home out during the winter season; and during the course of the rental, left his personal items on the property). See also Poppell v. Padrick, 117 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1959) (holding that a property owner who rented his home during the winter months; over the course of several years to live with his widowed mother; and maintained his personal property in the homesteaded property did not abandon homestead). See also Florida Att’y Gen. Op. 058-229 (property owner who rents a home in another county for work purposes did not abandon homestead where property owner had maintained homesteaded address for voter registration and voted in the subject county).

(4) Id.

(5) Fla. Stat. [section] 196.061(1996).

(6) Id. Moreover, the rental statute does not apply to members of the armed services. See id.

(7) Fla. Const. art. VII, [section] 6(a) (“Every person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains there on the permanent residence of the owner, or another legally or naturally dependant upon the owner, shall be exempt from taxation thereon, except assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of $25,000.00 and, for all levies other than school district levies, on the assess evaluation greater than $50,000.00 and up to $75,000.00, upon establishment of right thereto in the manner prescribed by law….”).

(8) See Horne v. Markham, 288 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1973) (holding that Fla. Const. art. VII, [section] 6 does not establish an absolute right to a homestead exemption, but rather, provides that taxpayers who otherwise qualify shall be granted an exemption only upon “establishment of the right thereto in the manner prescribed by law”).

(9) Fla. Stat. [section] 196.011.

(10) Fla. Stat. [section] 196.015.

(11) Id.

(12) See Capital City Country Club, Inc. v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 448, 452 (Fla. 1993); DeQuervain v. Desguin, 927 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2006); see also Parrish v. Pier Club Apts. LLC, 900 So. 2d 683, 685 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2005) (“[S]tatutes providing for an exemption from ad valorem tax are to be strictly construed, and any ambiguity is to be resolved against the taxpayer and against exemption.”). Presumably, non-constitutional exemptions are construed against the property owner because of the paramount public policy concern placed on the collection of ad valorem property taxes in a state that does not have an income tax. Statutory construction against property owners has also occurred in cases where the property owner is in the qualification or application phase for homestead.

(13) DeQuervain, 927 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2006) (holding that an alien without a visa did not establish requisite intent to maintain homestead during qualification phase, despite the facts that the homeowners had immigrated from Switzerland, resided legally in Florida, lived and worked in the county for at least five years, held Social Security numbers and drivers’ licenses, and paid federal income tax).

(14) See O Neal v. Miller, 196 So. 478 (Fla. 1940). It should be noted that the rule of strict interpretation will not apply when homestead is being used to perpetuate a fraud against a creditor. See In re Fin. Federated Title & Trust v. Levy, 273 B.R. 706, 713 (S.D. FL 2001). See also Colwell v. Royal International Trading Corp., 226 B.R. 714 (S.D. FL 1998) (when a creditor objected to separate homestead exemptions claimed by a separated husband and wife, the court concluded that an estranged couple living separately for an extended period of time in different residences deeded to them in their individual capacities were each entitled to claim separate homestead exemption). See also Monson v. First National Bank of Bradenton, 497 F.E2d 135 (5th Cir.1974) (reversing a bankruptcy referee’s finding of abandonment when a husband and wife lived outside of Florida while they were attempting to resolve marital difficulties). See also Nova v. Amerisource Corp., 860 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2003).

(15) Havoco, 790 So. 2d at 1021. It should be noted that the rule of strict interpretation will not apply when homestead is being used to perpetuate a fraud against a creditor. See In re Fin. Federated Title & Trust, 273 B.R. 706,713 (S.D. FL 2001). See also Colwell, 226 B.R. 714 (S.D. FL 1998). See also Monson, 497 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1974); Nova, 860 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2003).

(16) Padrick, 117 So. 2d at 436.

(17) Id. at 437; see also Miller v. West Palm Beach Atlantic Nat’l Bank, 194 So. 230,231 (1940); Fla. Att’y Gen. Ops. 79-50 (1979), 74-115 (1974), and 76-177 (1976).

(18) Padrick, 117 So. 2d at 437. Although discussed more fully later, it should be noted that there is a newly emerged split between the First and Second districts regarding the burden of proof in a case pertaining to rental abandonment.

(19) Haddock, 1 So. 3d at 1137-38.

(20) Id. at 1137.

(21) Id. Note that the rental program records reflected that the property owner’s unit was only rented for 113 nights in 2003, 104 nights in 2004, and 66 nights in 2005 (which equates to less than 20 percent of the entire year).

(22) Haddock, 1 So. 3d at 1137-38.

(23) Padrick, 117 So. 2d at 437 (emphasis added).

(24) The terms “rental” and “lease” are closely related but have historic differences which have become blurred in modern times. Leases were viewed as a form of rental whereby the term of the tenancy is established. By contrast, a rental would not have had a set term and could have been day-to-day or month-to-month. In common parlance, the distinction has generally been lost, and the terms “rental” and “lease” are now used interchangeably. For example, see Fla. Stat. [section] 212.02(10)(8), which groups the terms together in terms of triggering sales tax. See also FLA. STAT. Ch. 83, which establishes the rights and obligations between tenants and landlords. Moreover, “rental agreements” as set forth in Ch. 83 establish residential tenancies.

(25) The authors note that Ch. 196 of the Florida Statutes provides that “property rented for more than [six] months is presumed to be used for commercial purposes.” See Fla. Stat. [section] 196.012(13). The authors believe this section further illustrates that periods shorter than six months (which are typical of seasonal or short-term licensing or rental situations), may not necessarily trigger the rental statute.

(26) The Florida Legislature demonstrated that it understands the distinction between licenses and rentals, as it has defined the terms differently in statute. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. [section] 212.02(10)(8), which groups leases and rentals together. By contrast, that same section defines a “license” to mean “the granting of a privilege to use or occupy a building or parcel of real property for any purpose.”

(27) Turner, 974 So. 2d at 471.

(28) Id.

(29) Id. at 472.

(30) Id. at 473.

(31) Id. (emphasis added). The distinction between licenses and leases is important in cases assessing the liability of the owner for the injury of tenants as opposed to guests. See, e.g., Benton v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (Me. 2007), in which the Maine Supreme Court held that a two-week rental of a cottage constituted a license, not a lease. The court held, in pertinent part, that “[t]he limited two-week duration of the rental provides strong evidence for the conclusion that Blevins occupied the cottage pursuant to a license. Although a short rental term is not dispositive on the license or tenancy issue, it strongly suggests that the cottage rental was more akin to a place for travelers, lodgers, and transient guests, and did not convey a “possessioy interest in the land to another for a period of time…. The key to deciding whether there is a lease is whether the occupant is entitled to possession and exclusive occupancy of the premises. The family’s subjective belief that no one would interfere with their possession does not compel the conclusion that the family was entitled to legal possession. Based on the undisputed facts in this case, we conclude that the arrangement did not entitle the vacationing family to possession and exclusive occupancy of the premises.” Id. at 475 (emphasis added).

(32) Haddock, 1 So. 3d at 1137-38.

(33) Id. at 1137.

(34) Id.

(35) See Davis v. Florida Power Co., 60 So. 759,765 (1913).

(36) Haddock, 1 So. 3d at 1137.

(37) See, e.g., Amelia Island Plantation: Florida’s Premier Island Resort, http://realestate.aipfl.com.

(38) Haddock, 1 So. 3d at 1134.

(39) Id.

(40) For example, in Fla. Stat. [section] 776.013(5)(a) (emphasis added), the Florida Legislature defines the term “dwelling” to mean: “a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.” In Fla. Stat. [section] 810.011(2) (emphasis added), the Florida Legislature defined the term to mean: “a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the curtilage thereof.”

(41) See generally O Neal, 196 So. at 478-79; Havoco, 790 So. 2d at 1021; Bailey, 30 So. 2d at 530.

(42) The authors submit that a construction of the rental statute against the property owner disincentivizes rental activity, whether it be of luxury homes and condominiums, to small starter homes for teachers, police officers, or low-income families. Although housing prices have dropped considerably, the promise of home ownership remains elusive due to increasingly cumbersome lender restrictions. Moreover, existing tenants have lost the benefit of their existing leases due to the recent wave of foreclosures. Therefore, low-to-middle income families will suffer under a strained reading ofHaddock. Amy Hoak, Housing Affordability: Rents in Florida, Homes More Affordable in Most Cities, MARKET WATCH (May 7, 2009).

Mark A. Rothenberg is a land use and planning attorney. He is in-house counsel to the Southern California Edison Company, and his prior experience includes having represented developers, property owners, and local governments in all manner of real estate and development-related issues in Florida and California. Mr. Rothenberg received his JD., magna cum laude, from the University of Miami School of Law, where he served on law review.

Kara L. Cannizzaro is a land use and planning attorney with Siemon & Larsen, P.A. Ms. Cannizzaro has represented developers, local governments, and property owners in various development and real estate matters. Ms. Cannizzaro received her J.D. from Florida State University, where she was a member of the Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, as well as the Journal of Transnational Law and Policy.

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• The Home Selling Process
• Anna Maria Island featured in NYPost
• Results of Luxury Real Estate Auction in Sarasota

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Green Technology in 2011 Made Huge Leaps  (U.S. Green Technology)
• China Goes Green Initiating Major Climate Change Project  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts

Flanked by business and real estate leaders, Crist put his name to HB 521. The bill lowers the burden of proof for owners who dispute property tax assessments to a preponderance of the evidence – a lower standard than the clear and convincing threshold they now must meet to overturn a property appraiser’s estimate.

Local governments had successfully scuttled earlier efforts to lower the standard. In the just-signed version, property appraisers still enjoy the presumption that their estimates are correct, but the legislative analysts say the bill will cost local governments $157 million during the current fiscal year, increasing to $693 million a year by 2013.

More From Bradenton Real Estate

• International Investors
• $8K homebuyer credit signed into law
• Bradenton & Sarasota: A great place to start a business!

Bradenton Real Estate Recommends

• Bay Meadows  (Myrtle Beach Area Real Estate)
• Long Bay Estates  (Myrtle Beach Area Real Estate)

Ask Bradenton Real Estate To Recommend Your Posts