08/17/2022 VAB - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Formi DR -501T, Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference. The Property Appraiser's evidence is relevant, credible and admissible. Petitioner Albert Oram testified: Did not leave the property as "husband." Testified that Court order and final judgment was March 20, 2021 which ordered the property to be sold which meant that the Petitioner remained as tenants in common and the designation of "husband and wife" were not applicable. Testified that Petitioner sold his portion to the former spouse in May, 2018. Argued that the form in question requires that the parties be husband and wife during May, 2021 when the portion of the homestead was sold to the ex-spouse. Testified that the judge ordered the house to be sold. Testified that in May, 2018 when the portion was sold to the wife that the parties were tenants in common. Testified that Petitioner agrees with the Property Appraiser's Office that F.S. 193.155 is applicable but the focus should be in the tenants in common relationship and not the husband -and -wife relationship. (8) (d). Testified that Petitioner tried to get the wife to sign the document Form DR-501TS. Testified that when he abandoned the property in May, 2008 that the parties were not married and as a result, they were tenants in common. Argued that Florida Statute 193.155 does not directly address the issue when parties are tenants in common. Only addresses when parties are husband and wife. Testified that when Petitioner purchased the new home in 2019, Petitioner thought that he got portability. Testified that Petitioner did everything on line but then found out that there was no portability and misunderstood the notice from the Property Appraiser's Office. Testified that Petitioner re-applied for the homestead the next year although Petitioner had the homestead already and was told by the Property Appraiser that they would look into the portability issue and was then told that Petitioner did not qualify. Testified that Petitioner had a court order to sell the property to the ex- spouse as a result of the divorce. Argued that abandonment is not defined as "total and complete." Testified that in May, 2018, Petitioner abandoned his portion of the property at issue and was then tenants in common with the prior spouse as a result and that the prior spouse has refused to execute the documents. Argued that the divorce court failed to divide the property properly. Testified that if the Petitioner fails in the instant matter that Petitioner can then petition the Family Law Court that the property was not properly divided. Argued,that should be written into the recommendation. Testified that the divorce final judgment did not include a provision that any other property should be divided 50/50. Argued that abandonment is not defined for tenants in common. Argued that the matter could have been resolved in the final judgment. The Petitioner's evidence is relevant, credible and admissible. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW As to PETITION: 2021-00049 said petition is recommended to be DENIED. -27-