## Facts

- Richard James Anderson (Sr.) owned and lived in a Florida single-family residence with four bedrooms.
- Anderson (Sr.) occupied one bedroom and rented the other three bedrooms to unrelated tenants; tenants shared common areas with him.
- After Anderson (Sr.) died, his son and heir, Richard James Anderson II, sought a probate determination that the entire residence was constitutionally protected homestead and would pass to the heirs free of general judgment liens.
- Judgment creditors Renee Letosky and Precious Pets filed estate claims totaling about $38,551 and sought to satisfy their judgments through a forced sale of the property (at least the rented portion).
- The probate court ruled that renting three of four bedrooms caused 75% of the property to lose homestead protection, leaving only 25% exempt and 75% subject to creditor process.
- Anderson II appealed the probate court’s homestead apportionment ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether renting three bedrooms within an owner-occupied, single-family residence causes those rented portions to lose homestead protection from forced sale and judgment liens.
2. Whether a probate court may apportion homestead protection by percentage in an indivisible single-family home based on income-producing bedroom rentals.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the probate court’s order.
- The court held the homestead exemption protected the entire single-family residence from general judgment creditors despite the bedroom rentals.
- The residence passed to the heirs intact and undivided, free of the creditors’ judgment liens.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s constitutional homestead exemption protects qualifying homestead property from forced sale and from judgment, decree, or execution, subject only to narrow constitutional exceptions.
- Homestead protections are construed liberally in favor of preserving the family home and in favor of the exemption.
- For an owner-occupied, single-family residence that has not been physically or legally divided into separate dwelling units, renting portions of the home does not permit apportionment of homestead protection between “homestead” and “non-homestead” parts.
- Apportionment of homestead protection may be appropriate in properties with distinct, separable units, but not where the property functions as a single, indivisible residence with shared living spaces.

## Conclusion

The court held that an owner’s rental of bedrooms within an indivisible, owner-occupied single-family home does not reduce constitutional homestead protection, so the entire residence is exempt from general judgment creditors and passes to heirs intact.


Anderson v. Letosky, 304 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)