Case Name: Tony NOVOA and Drumia Novoa, Appellants, v. AMERISOURCE CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-11-26
Citations: 860 So. 2d 506
Docket Number: No. 3D03-161
Parties: Tony NOVOA and Drumia Novoa, Appellants, v. AMERISOURCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 860
Pages: 506–509

Head Matter:
Tony NOVOA and Drumia Novoa, Appellants, v. AMERISOURCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 3D03-161.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 26, 2003.
Woodbury & Santiago and Michael P. Woodbury, for appellants.
Raul Gastesi and Leonardo G. Renaud, for appellee.
Before COPE, LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
SHEVIN, Judge.
Tony Novoa and Drumia Novoa appeal an order granting a summary judgment in favor of judgment creditor, AmeriSource Corporation, in its action to foreclose on real property. We reverse.
Mr. Novoa argues on appeal that he presented sufficient evidence at the summary judgment hearing that the property was homestead, and not subject to foreclosure by the creditor, to create an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. Mrs. Novoa asserts that the court erred in granting summary judgment in view of her testimony that her husband's creditor could not attach the property because, despite a clerical error in the title, the parties intended to hold the property as tenants by the entireties.
The court in Jebailey v. Watsky & Co., 676 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), was presented with a similar scenario. Jebai-ley sold his homestead in Florida and was living in Lebanon. His creditors sought to attach the proceeds of the sale. The Fifth District held that testimony from Jebai-ley's daughter — explaining her parents' intent to purchase another Florida property as homestead with those proceeds — precluded summary judgment. In the case before us, there was sufficient record evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding Mr. Novoa's intention to continue to use the property as his homestead. Novoa testified that he intended to continue using the property as his homestead and would be returning to the property as soon as his legal problems in the United States had been resolved. This created a factual issue that precluded summary judgment.
AmeriSource argues that the No-voas abandoned the homestead because they are currently living in Costa Rica. Novoa refuted this allegation by testifying that he is in Costa Rica pending resolution of his legal problems, and that he intends to return to the property as homestead when these problems abate. "Continuous uninterrupted physical presence is not required to create a homestead." Burdick v. Burdick, 399 So.2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). "A homestead is abandoned by taking up a permanent abode at a distant place. Whether there has been an abandonment of a homestead . should be determined by a consideration of all the pertinent facts and circumstances of each case." Miller v. West Palm Beach Atlantic Nat'l Bank, 142 Fla. 22, 194 So. 230 (1940). In Dean v. Heimbach, 409 So.2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the court found that involuntary absence from homestead, caused by legal problems of the owner, are insufficient to constitute abandonment of the homestead. The status of homestead is preserved "when the family unit is temporarily removed from the homestead but the homestead remains the permanent abode to which the family unit intends to return." Dean, 409 So.2d at 158. Novoa's testimony created an issue of fact as to his intention to return, and not abandon the homestead.
Moreover, in granting summary judgment in this case, the trial court im-permissibly weighed the credibility of Mrs. Novoa and disregarded her testimony that they intended to title the property as tenants by the entireties. This was improper, as credibility determinations must be made by a jury at trial. Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Jebailey.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
LEVY, J., concurs.