HERMAN COHEN, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
CORAL GABLES FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND WILLIE JAMES JACKSON, A/K/A WILLIE GENE JACKSON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cohen, who purchased property at a sheriff's sale, appeals the trial court's order voiding the sale based on the property's homestead exemption. The appellate court held that while the Civil Court of Record lacked jurisdiction to determine homestead status, it properly denied confirmation of the sale and remanded for proceedings in the Circuit Court.
The Civil Court of Record lacked equity jurisdiction to set apart a homestead; however, the homestead issue could be raised as a bar to confirmation of the sale if accompanied by a complaint filed or tendered to be filed in the Circuit Court within a reasonable time.
[1] A civil court of record lacks jurisdiction to determine homestead rights, which is a matter exclusively for circuit courts exercising equity jurisdiction.
[2] A homestead claim can only be raised in a civil court of record as a bar to the confirmation of a sheriff's sale, and must be accompanied by a complaint filed or tendered…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The issue could be raised in the Civil Court of Record only as a bar to the confirmation of the sale, and should have been accompanied by a copy of a complaint filed or tendered to be filed in the Circuit Court within a short time set.”
Establishes the proper procedure for raising homestead exemptions in the context of sheriff's sale confirmations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCohen purchased real property at a sheriff's sale. The appellee bank and Jackson moved to deny confirmation of the sale, claiming the property was exe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Limited Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was a purchaser of real property at a sheriff’s sale. He brings this appeal from a Civil Court of Record order granting the appellee’s motion to deny confirmation of sale. The order declared the sale void and further held that the property was not subject to execution because it was the appellee’s homestead. Fla. Const. Art. X, § 4, F.S.A.
Two points on appeal are presented for our review. The first point urges that the Civil Court of Record is a court of limited jurisdiction and that under Fla.Const. Art. V, F.S.A.,1 and Fla.Stat. § 222.08, F.S.A., only the circuit courts of this State have the equity jurisdiction to set apart homesteads. The second point urges that the appellee has not proceeded properly to protect his rights under Fla.Stat. § 222.02, F.S.A.
Appellant is correct in his contention that the Civil Court of Record did not have jurisdiction to determine the homestead issue. The issue could be raised in the Civil Court of Record only as a bar to the confirmation of the sale, and should have been accompanied by a copy of a complaint filed or tendered to be filed in the Circuit Court within a short time set.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Record as it existed at the time of the entry of the order appealed is set forth by statute. Fla.Stat. § 33.14 (1969), F.S.A. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that this jurisdiction does not include equity jurisdiction. Hodges v. Lamar, 119 Fla. 566, 161 So. 81 (1934). Also see Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox, 152 Fla. 889, 13 So.2d 448 (1943); Bennett v. Bogue, 88 Fla. 109, 101 So. 206 (1924). *190Therefore, the Civil Court of Record cannot set apart a homestead. See Barrs v. State ex rel. Britt, 95 Fla. 75, 116 So. 28 (1928); Blackwelder v. D’Ercole Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 598.
The order appealed is affirmed as to the denial of confirmation of sale, reversed as to declaring the sale void, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- IDE v. City OF ST. Cloud, 152 Fla. 837 (Fla. 1943)
- Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox, 152 Fla. 889 (Fla. 1943)
- Burton Barrs v. State, 95 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1928)
- Bennett v. Bogue, 88 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1924)
- Hodges v. Lamar, 119 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1934)
- Blackwelder v. D'Ercole Enters., Inc., 126 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)