CARYN HALL YOST-RUDGE v. A TO Z PROPERTIES, INC.
263 So. 3d 95
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Wife and husband lived on property until city and county code-enforcement actions rendered the property unsafe; a court order in March 2010 enjoined them from occupying the property.
- The family complied, relocated, and never resumed residence; some structures and debris were later removed by government action.
- In March 2015 the husband conveyed the property by warranty deed to A to Z Properties without the wife’s signature or consent.
- Buyer sued to quiet title and sought a declaratory ruling that neither spouse had a homestead interest; wife (pro se) answered, denied abandonment, and asserted continuing intent to return and remediate the property.
- Trial court entered partial summary judgment for buyer, concluding the property was not homestead at the time of sale; wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Buyer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether homestead was abandoned so husband could alienate without wife’s joinder | Wife: absence was involuntary due to injunction; she intended to return and took remediation/legal steps | Buyer: injunction and long absence amounted to abandonment, so homestead protection ended | Reversed: factual dispute on intent to abandon precluded summary judgment; homestead not conclusively abandoned |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on homestead issue | Wife: disputed material facts about intent; attached evidence of inspections, remediation efforts, and litigation to retain property | Buyer: argued uncontested facts showed abandonment and entitled it to judgment as matter of law | Reversed: summary judgment improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding intent |
| Effect of governmental action (injunction/condemnation) on homestead status | Wife: involuntary removal does not destroy homestead; involuntary absence preserves homestead if intent to return exists | Buyer: governmental enforcement leading to vacancy supports finding of abandonment | Court: involuntary displacement does not automatically constitute abandonment; intent must be examined |
| Burden at summary judgment | Wife: denial and submitted documentary evidence raised disputes of fact | Buyer: claimed wife offered no affidavits and failed to raise affirmative defenses | Court: moving party must negate material fact; doubts resolved against movant — buyer failed to meet burden here |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary-judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact)
- Bratt ex rel. Bratt v. Laskas, 845 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (movant must present competent evidence negating material factual disputes)
- Vera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 178 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (married owner cannot alienate homestead without spouse’s joinder)
- Law v. Law, 738 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (homestead generally requires occupancy plus intent to remain)
- JBK Assocs. v. Sill Bros., Inc., 160 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (homestead protections construed liberally)
- Coy v. Mango Bay Prop. and Invs., Inc., 963 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (abandonment requires both owner and family to abandon)
- Beensen v. Burgess, 218 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (abandonment decided case-by-case under totality of circumstances)
- In re Melisi, 440 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (involuntary absence does not necessarily destroy homestead)
- Crain v. Putnam, 687 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (homestead retained despite prolonged absence where indicia of intent to preserve remained)
- Stokes v. Whidden, 122 So. 566 (Fla. 1929) (commitment of owner did not amount to abandonment where homestead character persisted)