Another Homestead Puzzler

Here's another case that illustrates the challenge of deciphering a homestead puzzle. In Anderson v. Precious Pets and Letosky, the decedent owned a four bedroom home.  He rented three bedrooms.  Normally, we expect that the homestead protections only apply to a residence within a municipality if it used used for residential purposes.  Here, the creditor argued that three bedrooms were rented, so 75% of the value of the homestead residence was not protected.  The Second District disagreed, and cited prior decisions that distinguish a home with distinct divisions between residential and commercial use.  In this case, Mr. Anderson shared the common areas with his tenants.  Finding that the arrangement was unlike a duplex-type arrangement where tenant and landlord living areas where segregated, the Second District held that the entire home was exempt homestead.  Had there been a wall, or separated living areas, the case would have turned out differently.  Here's a link to the 2d DCA opinion: 

Anderson v. Precious Pets and Letosky