Scope of The Debtor Protection
Florida's debtor protection homestead provision is one of the broadest in the United States. The value of the property that can be protected is unlimited, so long as the property occupies no more than ½ acre (2,000 m²) within a municipality, or 160 acres (650,000 m²) outside of a municipality. The provision is written into the Florida Constitution, Article X, section 4, so it can not be removed without a constitutional amendment.
Because of the scope of the protection afforded, persons from other states with heavy debts or large court judgments against them have been known to purchase expensive estates in Florida, a famous example being O.J. Simpson. This strategy has been somewhat impaired by the 2005 Bankruptcy Code amendments.
One event that can drastically affect the value of a homestead is municipal incorporation. If a 160 acre (650,000 m²) non-municipal homestead is on land that is later incorporated into a municipality, the homestead will be grandfathered in and remain protected for the owner and his heirs. However, for any future purchasers of all or part of the property, the protected land will drop to the ½ acre (2,000 m²) allowed within a municipality.
Read more about this topic: Homestead Exemption In Florida
Famous quotes containing the words scope of, scope, debtor and/or protection:
“The scope of modern government in what it can and ought to accomplish for its people has been widened far beyond the principles laid down by the old “laissez faire” school of political rights, and the widening has met popular approval.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)
“Every person is responsible for all the good within the scope of his abilities, and for no more, and none can tell whose sphere is the largest.”
—Gail Hamilton (1833–1896)
“Every novel is a debtor to Homer.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“Take away from the courts, if it could be taken away, the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes, and it would create a privileged class among the laborers and save the lawless among their number from a most needful remedy available to all men for the protection of their business interests against unlawful invasion.... The secondary boycott is an instrument of tyranny, and ought not to be made legitimate.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)