705 So. 2d 36 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1997
Plaintiffs appeal a final summary judgment determining that defendant’s property is entitled to homestead exemption. We affirm.
Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition of defendant’s predecessor in title from evidence when it ruled on the summary judgment motion. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court should have considered the deposition in determining the entitlement to homestead status, the error is harmless. Although the “general rule [provides] that homestead protection should not extend to [severable] income producing portions of the debtor’s property,” First Leasing & Funding of Fla., Inc. v. Fiedler, 591 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), that rule is clearly not dispositive of this case. In the 1989 deposition, the predecessor in title testified that he had used the separate structure at the rear of the property as a corporate office for Deep Sea Fisheries, Inc. However, that testimony fails
Affirmed^
. Although the corporate documents list the property address as the corporate offices of Blue Water Fisheries, Inc., and T-Jett Enterprises, Inc., the deposition does not address the use of the separate structure for those corporate offices. Cf. First Leasing & Funding of Fla., Inc., 591 So.2d at 1152 (rental units with separate mailing addresses not entitled to homestead exemption).