Homestead exemption and recreational vehicles & mobile homes

Number: AGO 74-111
Date: April 9, 1974
Subject: Homestead exemption and recreational vehicle
RE: TAXATION--HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION--ELIGIBILITY OF RECREATIONAL CAMPER SITUATED ON PARCEL IN CONDOMINIUM ORGANIZATION

To: Gerald Conrad, Bay County Tax Assessor, Panama City

Prepared by: William R. Cave, Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel C. Brown, Legal Intern

QUESTION:

May the owner of a parcel in a recreational camper trailer condominium organization who resides on the parcel in an impermanent structure qualify for homestead exemption from taxation as to the parcel, notwithstanding the impermanent nature of the structure and notwithstanding the fact that the articles of condominium include a covenant that said owner will not erect a permanent or semipermanent structure on the parcel?

SUMMARY:

The owner of a parcel in a recreational camper trailer condominium organization may qualify for homestead exemption under Art. VII, s. 6(a), State Const., and s. 196.031, F. S., despite the impermanency of the structure in which he resides and notwithstanding a covenant in the articles of condominium that no permanent or semipermanent structure will be erected on the site, if the facts and circumstances as a whole show that said owner otherwise meets the requirements for homestead exemption, that he actually resides on the property, and that he has a present intention to reside thereon indefinitely.

Your question is answered in the affirmative, subject to the qualifications discussed below.

You have enclosed with your letter a copy of the relevant articles of condominium which contain, inter alia, the following restrictive covenant:

"No permanent or semi-permanent structure may be erected on any unit in the subdivision nor may any trailer which is designed as permanent living quarters be located or placed on any unit, it being the declared intent of the subdivider to exclude mobile homes from use of the unit and to create and maintain an area designed for the maximum beauty and benefit of leisure time campers."

Your letter posits the question whether, in view of such language, and in view of the impermanency of the residential structure, the parcel or unit owner can qualify for homestead exemption.

In answering your question, I assume that the parcel owner has legal or equitable title to the parcel, as required by Art. VII, s. 6, State Const. The only question directly involved is the issue of whether the parcel owner can meet the requirements of permanent residence under these circumstances. Article VII, s. 6, State Const.; s. 196.031, F. S.

Article VII, s. 6(a), State Const., requires that, to be eligible for homestead exemption, the owner of legal or equitable title to real estate maintain thereon his "permanent residence" or the permanent residence of another legally or naturally dependent on him. Section 196.031, F. S., requires that the person seeking homestead exemption reside on the property and in good faith make the same his "permanent home." Section 196.051, F. S., and Ch. 12B-1.202 (5)(A), F. A. C., define the requirement of permanent residence or home as follows:

"The words "resident," "residence," "permanent residence," "permanent home," and those of like import, shall not be construed so as to require continuous physical residence on the property, but mean only that place which the person claiming the exemption may rightfully and in good faith call his home to the exclusion of all other places where he may, from time to time, temporarily reside."

Additionally, Ch. 12B-1.202(5)(A)(1), states:

"For one to make a certain parcel of land his permanent home he must reside thereon with a present intention of living there indefinitely, and with no present intention of moving therefrom." (Emphasis supplied.)

It thus appears that the requirement of permanent residency resolves into an inquiry as to actual physical residence on the property and the present intention of the owner to reside there indefinitely. Cf. Lanier v. Lanier, 116 So. 867 (Fla. 1928).

Since the critical issue is the intention of the owner, the character of the residential structure itself cannot be considered dispositive, although it may be considered as a factor in evaluating the owner's intention. This point is well explained in the opinions of my predecessors in office. In AGO 065-55, it was stated:

". . . The "permanent home" may be a splendid mansion, an ordinary residence, a cottage, a one room cabin, a hovel, a cave, a dugout in the earth or other place of actual residence. . . . [T]he particular kind of dwelling house is not material, but the premises must actually be used as a permanent home. . . ."

And, in AGO 057-327 it was said:

". . . The fact that the homestead claimant is residing in a trailer or other type of residence subject to almost immediate movement to another state or county does not disprove his intention to make the real property upon which located his permanent home, although it should be taken into consideration with all other facts and circumstances. . . ."

Although both of these opinions address the meaning of the permanent home requirement of former Art. X, s. 7, State Const. of 1885, they are of continuing vitality as to the "permanent residence" requirement now contained in Art. VII, s. 6 of the 1968 Florida Constitution. If anything, the term "residence" focuses concern more particularly on the intentions of the homestead claimant than does the term "home." Compare, 11 Fla.Jur. Domicil and Residence s. 2, with 11 Fla.Jur. Domicil and Residence s. 6. Therefore, the mere fact that the homestead claimant's residential structure is of an impermanent or movable nature does not, standing alone, disqualify the homestead claim.

Nor in my opinion does the restrictive covenant contained in the articles of condominium necessarily disqualify the parcel owner from receiving homestead exemption. The homestead claimant's intention to permanently reside on the property must be determined from the totality of facts and circumstances, and not necessarily by reliance solely upon the representations of the parties. Attorney General Opinion 057-327, supra.

In sum, despite the impermanency of the structure in which the parcel owner lives and notwithstanding his covenant not to erect a permanent or semipermanent structure, the parcel owner may still qualify for homestead exemption if the totality of facts and circumstances shows that the owner has legal or equitable title to the parcel, that he actually resides thereon, and that he has a present intention of residing thereon indefinitely. Of course, it is for the tax assessor in the first instance to determine the intention of the parcel owner and in so doing to evaluate such facts as structural permanency and the restrictive covenant of concern here. See AGO 057-327, supra. However, it would be improper to base a denial of homestead exemption solely on such a covenant or upon the potential mobility of the housing structure without regard to the totality of the circumstances.

http://www.floridahomesteadservices.com

Number: AGO 75-159
Date: June 3, 1975
Subject: Homestead exemption and mobile home
075-159 -- June 3, 1975
TAXATION
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR MOBILE HOME -- LAND OWNED BY
CORPORATION IN WHICH RESIDENTS ARE SHAREHOLDERS --
PROPRIETY OF "RP" LICENSE PLATE

To: James W. Bass, St. Lucie County Property Appraiser, Fort Pierce

Prepared by: J. Kendrick Tucker, Assistant Attorney General

QUESTIONS:
1. Are a husband and wife who otherwise meet the
statutory requirements to qualify for homestead exemption
from ad valorem taxes entitled to the exemption when the
land on which their mobile home is located and in which
they reside is titled in a corporation whose stock is owned
by the husband and wife and other mobile home owners who
likewise reside on said land?
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative,
then should the land be listed and assessed on the tax roll
to the corporation or to the owners of the stock in the
corporation?
3. May an "RP" license tag be issued to the husband and
wife for their mobile home when the land the mobile home is
located on is titled in a corporation whose stock is owned
by the husband and wife and other mobile home owners who
likewise reside on said land?

SUMMARY:
A husband and wife otherwise meeting the statutory
requirements to qualify for the homestead tax exemption and
whose mobile home is permanently affixed to the realty may
nevertheless qualify for the homestead tax exemption
pursuant to Art. VII, s. 6, State Const., even though the
land on which their mobile is located is titled in a
corporation, if they own stock in the corporation
representing a proportionate interest in the fee. The
proportionate interest of the stockholder in the realty
should be listed and assessed on the tax roll to that
stockholder because that stockholder is deemed to be the
owner of the proportionate interest for ad valorem tax
purposes pursuant to Art. VII, s. 6. The tax collector may
issue an "RP" license tag to a husband and wife for their
mobile home even though the land on which the mobile home
is located is titled in a corporation but only when the
husband and wife own stock in the corporation representing
their proportionate interest in the fee.
In essence you indicate that the mobile home trailer park in
question is owned by a corporation which sells a share of the
corporation to a mobile home owner that entitles the owner to occupy
a mobile home site on the land. Of the 69 shares of the corporation
representing sites or lots, only four have not been sold. I am
assuming the husband and wife are otherwise entitled to the homestead
exemption and that the mobile home is permanently affixed to the
realty and is their permanent home. See AGO's 074-115, 072-74, and
071-213.
Your first question is answered in the affirmative. Your second
question is answered in that the proportionate interest of the
stockholder in the realty should be listed and assessed on the tax
roll to that stockholder. Your third question is answered in that
the tax collector may issue an "RP" license tag to the husband and
wife for their mobile home even though the land on which the mobile
home is located is titled in a corporation whose stock is owned by
the husband and wife and other mobile home owners who reside thereon.
Article VII, s. 6, State Const., is the source of the homestead
exemption from ad valorem taxation and provides in pertinent part as
follows:
(a) Every person who has the legal or equitable title
to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent
residence of the owner, . . . shall be exempt from taxation
thereon, . . . up to the assessed valuation of five
thousand dollars, upon establishment of right thereto in
the manner prescribed by law. The real estate may be held
by legal or equitable title, by the entireties, jointly, in
common, as a condominium, or indirectly by stock ownership
or membership representing the owner's or member's
proprietary interest in a corporation owning a fee or a
leasehold initially in excess of ninety-eight years.
(b) . . . No exemption shall exceed the value of the
real estate assessable to the owner or, in case of
ownership through stock or membership in a corporation, the
value of the proportion which his interest in the
corporation bears to the assessed value of the property.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In like terms s. 196.031(1), F. S., provides in pertinent part as
follows:
Every person who has the legal title or beneficial title
in equity to real property in this state and who resides
thereon and in good faith makes the same his or her
permanent home, . . . shall be entitled to an exemption
from all taxation, . . . up to the assessed valuation of
five thousand dollars. . . . [S]aid exemption may be
apportioned among such of the owners as shall reside
thereon, as their respective interests shall appear, but no
such exemption of more than five thousand dollars shall be
allowed to any one person or any one dwelling house, . . .
nor shall the amount of the exemption allowed any person
exceed the proportionate assessed valuation based on the
interest owned by such person. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, the claimant husband and wife may receive the homestead ad
valorem tax exemption even though they only own stock in the
corporation or membership representing their proprietary interest in
the corporation which corporation owns the fee pursuant to the above-
quoted terms of Art. VII, s. 6, State Const. Cf., AGO's 074-111 and
071-19 and ss. 196.031(2) and 196.041, F. S. This was not the case
under the Constitution of 1885, which contained no provision for
allowing the homestead tax exemption where the claimant's interest
was that of stock in a corporation. See Feb. 18, 1947, Biennial
Report of the Attorney General, 1947-1948, p. 196, AGO's 056-22, 061-
55, and 061-113. As noted by the Commentary to Art. VII, s. 6,
supra:
. . . The title may be either legal or equitable. It
can be held by the entireties, jointly, in common or
indirectly. The indirect ownership can be by stock
ownership or membership representing the owner's or
member's proprietary interest in a corporation. The
corporation's interest must be either in fee or as a
leasehold interest initially in excess of 98 years.
(Emphasis supplied.) [(See) 26A Fla. Statutes Annotated, p.
111.]
Your first question is therefore answered in the affirmative.
Your second question asks whether such property as above described
should be assessed in the name of the stockholder or the titleholder-
corporation. Section 193.085(1), F. S., provides in pertinent part:
"The tax assessor shall insure that all real property within his
county is listed and valued on the real property assessment roll. . .
."
Section 193.114(2), F. S., provides in pertinent part:
The department shall promulgate regulations and forms
for the preparation of the real property assessment roll to
reflect:
* * * * *
(e) The owner or fiduciary responsible for payment of
taxes on the property. . . .
As noted above, the holder of the stock certificate is deemed to
be an "indirect owner" of the proportionate part of the fee for ad
valorem tax purposes. I am therefore of the view that such "indirect
ownership" of the proportionate interest for ad valorem tax purposes
reasonably supports the conclusion that the proportionate interest
entitled to the homestead exemption should be listed and assessed on
the tax roll to the owner of the stock certificate representing same.
Cf., AGO 071-19, s. 196.041, F. S., and Rule 12B-1.202(4)(D)(2)(d),
Florida Administrative Code, which provides as to the analogous
situation involving apartment buildings:
A tenant-stockholder . . . who is entitled solely by
reason of his ownership of stock or membership in the
corporation to occupy for dwelling purposes an apartment in
a building owned by the corporation, for the purpose of
homestead exemption from ad valorem taxes, is deemed to
have beneficial title in equity to said apartment and a
proportionate share of the land on which the building is
situated. (Emphasis supplied.)
Your third question asks if an "RP" tag can be issued to the
husband and wife for their mobile home when the land the mobile home
is located on is titled in a corporation whose stock is owned by the
husband and wife and other mobile home owners who likewise reside
thereon.
Section 320.0815, F. S., provides in pertinent part as follows:
. . . Mobile homes or recreational vehicles which are
permanently affixed to the land and taxed as real property
shall be issued "RP" series license plates. Series "RP"
plates shall be provided by the department of highway
safety and motor vehicles to the tax collector and issued
by the tax collector . . . upon the registered owner's
production of a certificate of the respective tax assessor
that such mobile home is included in an assessment of the
property of such registered owner for ad valorem taxation.
. . . (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 320.015, F. S., provides in pertinent part as follows:
A mobile home, as defined in s. 320.01(2), regardless of
its actual use, shall be subject only to a license tax
unless classified and taxed as real property. A mobile
home is to be considered real property only when the owner
of the mobile home is also the owner of the land on which
the mobile home is situated and said mobile home is
permanently affixed thereto. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
As above discussed in question 2 for ad valorem tax purposes, the
stockholder owning a proportionate interest in the fee held by the
corporation is deemed to be the owner of the proportionate interest.
Therefore, it is my opinion that such "ownership" by the stockholder
likewise falls within the ownership requirement of s. 320.015, supra,
so that the stockholder is entitled to an "RP" license tag for the
mobile home due to its indirect ownership of the land on which the
mobile home is affixed.

http://www.floridahomesteadservices.com