Lillian L. Vera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A
178 So. 3d 517
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Wells Fargo sued to foreclose a mortgage executed November 15, 1999, by Georgina Vera and Rogelio Vera, and alleged the land was then owned and possessed by Georgina and Rogelio. Lillian Vera (Homeowner) was named as a defendant and the complaint acknowledged she “may have or appear to have some right” via a quitclaim deed but that any interest was inferior to plaintiff’s mortgage.
- Homeowner admitted the complaint’s allegation that Georgina and Rogelio owned the property, but denied her interest was inferior and asserted an affirmative defense that the property was her homestead exempt from forced sale.
- Homeowner alleged she and Rogelio were married in 1998, moved into and permanently resided at the property in the months prior to November 15, 1999, the Bank never obtained her signature on the mortgage, and Georgina deeded the property to Homeowner and Rogelio on November 13, 2002.
- The Bank moved for final summary judgment, submitting evidence (appraisal showing vacancy July 27, 1999; Homeowner’s 1998–1999 tax returns listing a different address; tax records showing no 1999 homestead exemption; Homeowner’s deposition admitting she left the property in 2011 for an unspecified time).
- Homeowner submitted an affidavit reiterating her homestead allegations. The trial court granted final summary judgment for the Bank; no hearing transcript is in the record.
- On appeal the Fourth District held genuine issues of material fact existed whether the property was Homeowner’s homestead before the mortgage (ownership date, marriage date, and establishment/continuity of residence), and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Homeowner) | Defendant's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine issue whether the property was Homeowner’s homestead before the mortgage? | Homeowner: she and husband moved in and began permanent residence before Nov. 15, 1999; thus homestead existed and spouse’s joinder was required for mortgage. | Bank: Homeowner failed to show ownership or homestead status prior to the mortgage; evidence shows vacancy and different address in 1999. | Court: Reversed — material factual dispute exists on homestead timing and continuity, precluding summary judgment. |
| Did the Bank conclusively show there is no homestead via documentary evidence? | Homeowner: her affidavit and prior admissions create issues of fact about residence and ownership timing. | Bank: appraisal, tax returns, and tax records undermine homestead claim. | Court: Bank failed to carry summary judgment burden; inferences must be resolved against mover. |
| Was Homeowner required to sign the mortgage if homestead existed? | Homeowner: yes — spouse/signature required to alienate homestead. | Bank: (implicit) Homeowner did not establish she had homestead rights at the relevant time, so joinder unnecessary. | Court: Not decided on the merits; left open because factual dispute as to homestead prevents resolution. |
| Did Homeowner waive homestead protection by leaving the property in 2011? | Homeowner: continues to reside and intends to remain; departure in 2011 does not defeat homestead established earlier. | Bank: Homeowner admitted leaving the property in 2011 (argued discontinuity). | Court: Fact issue regarding continuity of residence contributes to remand; summary judgment inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cnty v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126 (summary judgment standard and requirement that moving party show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Lindsey, 50 So. 3d 1205 (doubt on summary judgment resolved against the moving party)
- Bender v. CareGivers of Am., Inc., 42 So. 3d 893 (same principle on summary judgment inferences)
- Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905 (burden on movant to conclusively show no material factual dispute)
- Aronson v. Aronson, 81 So. 3d 515 (elements relevant to homestead entitlement)
- McCabe v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 68 So. 3d 995 (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Heath v. First Nat’l Bank in Milton, 213 So. 2d 883 (spouse’s joinder required to alienate homestead)