AUGUST L. BOBENHAUSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES BOUCHER AND TERESA BOUCHER, 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.
In this homestead exemption dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict granted to homeowners who claimed their real property was exempt from execution on a judgment lien. The court held that the parties' stipulation to the validity of the underlying lien relieved the judgment creditor from proving recordation of the judgment, and the case should proceed to trial on the homestead designation issue.
The parties' stipulation to the validity of the underlying lien through the instrument styled 'Summation of Case' relieved the judgment creditor of the requirement to prove recordation of a certified copy of the judgment. The directed verdict was therefore improper and the case should proceed to trial on the merits of the homestead designation claim.
[1] A stipulation of the parties regarding the validity of an underlying lien may obviate the need to prove recordation of a certified copy of the judgment.
[2] A homestead designation is presumed valid and cannot be overcome without sufficient proof.
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“While it may have been better practice for appellant to have proven that a certified copy of the judgment had been recorded, we are of the opinion that the parties had stipulated to the validity of the underlying lien by the instrument styled "Summation of Case."”
Establishes that the parties' written stipulation to lien validity eliminated the need to prove recordation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant obtained a judgment against the appellees on January 29, 1976, and attempted to execute on their real property. The appellees filed an affid…
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 Stipulation Of Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant obtained a judgment against the appellees on January 29, 1976. Pursuant to that judgment, appellant attempted to execute upon the real property of the appellees. The appellees filed an affidavit designating the said real property as homestead to defeat the execution. Appellant then filed this action to set aside the appel-lees’ designation of homestead. The trial was before the court without a jury. At the close of the appellant’s case, appellees moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that appellant had failed to prove recordation of a certified copy of the judgment against appellees, and that appellant had failed to overcome the presumption of homestead. After hearing arguments of counsel, the trial court granted appellees’ motion for a directed verdict, and cited therein the lack of proof of recordation of a certified copy of the judgment as the basis of its order. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. This appeal followed.
By instrument styled “Summation of Case,” the parties stipulated as follows:
[*CXII] “SUMMATION OF CASE
ISSUE NO. I:
DID CHARLES AND THERESA BOUCHER ABANDON THEIR HOMESTEAD
ANSWER:
If yes, the Judgment is a lien on the property and subject to sale.
If the answer to the above is no, then the second issue must be addressed.
ISSUE NO. 2:
DID THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1438 [and surrounding vacant lots] [DWM] [DCG] CASSAT AVENUE, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, BECOME A PART OF THE HOMESTEAD BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF LIEN ATTACHED
ANSWER:
If the answer to the above is yes, then the entire property owned by Charles and Theresa Boucher is exempt.
If the answer to the above is no, then that portion of the property owned by Charles and Theresa Boucher, formerly leased to Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, Inc., is not exempt.”
Appellant argues that the summation of the case stipulates to the validity of the underlying lien, with the only issue to be determined by the trial court being whether the appellees properly designated the real property as homestead. Appellant further argues that he was not required to prove that a certified copy of the judgment had been recorded. We agree. While it may have been better practice for appellant to have proven that a certified copy of the judgment had been recorded, we are of the opinion that the parties had stipulated to the validity of the underlying lien by the instrument styled “Summation of Case.”
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. Trump, 549 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…never challenged Mr. Slade’s status in his complaint, the pre-trial statement, or at trial. The court on its own could not make Mr. Slade’s status an issue. Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bobenhausen v. Boucher, 377 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Therefore, the trial court erred in injecting this issue in the case and declaring Mr. Slade’s appraisal “unlawful” because of his failure to be deputized under section 193.024, Florida Statutes (1987). B. Rejection of Property…