Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 13, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court
Robert Buchman appeals an Order granting Nancy Canard a one-third interest in his homestead residence, which the lower court deemed a partnership asset not protected by the homestead exemption. The case stems from a partnership between Buchman and Canard, during which Buchman sold partnership assets without Canard's consent. Canard subsequently sued for an accounting, damages, and partnership dissolution, alleging Buchman misused partnership assets for his residence. The lower court dissolved the partnership, found Buchman wrongfully dissociated, and classified the real property at 7325 S.W. 102nd Street as a partnership asset, ordering its sale.
In post-judgment proceedings, the trial court confirmed Canard's one-third interest in Buchman's residence, denying his homestead claim based on its partnership asset designation. Buchman challenges the trial court's decisions, arguing that the residence should not be classified as a partnership asset, that the sale was forced, and that the transfer of title lacked his wife's consent. He also contends the court improperly voided a Quit Claim Deed he executed with his wife and erred in limiting damages regarding the residence's inclusion as a business asset.
The Court affirmed the trial court's rulings, referencing the arbitration award that identified the residence as a partnership asset and was ratified in 2003. Buchman's subsequent homestead designation occurred after this ratification, rendering his arguments about the property being homestead ineffective. The Court reiterated that the residence's classification as a partnership asset was established by the law of the case following the prior affirmation of the arbitration award.
In Bueno v. Khawly, 677 So.2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the court established that findings from a prior appeal are binding on the parties involved. A per curiam decision serves as the law of the case regarding the same parties and issues, encompassing all necessary matters from the appeal, regardless of whether they were explicitly mentioned. The court determined that the property in question was classified as a partnership asset, thus creating a legal precedent regarding Buchman and Canard. The ruling raises the issue of whether a partner can claim a homestead interest in partnership property; however, it was established that property owned by a partnership is considered the partnership's collective property, not that of individual partners. As per Shephard v. Ouellete, 854 So.2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), partnership-owned real estate cannot be partitioned, although a judicial sale may occur during the partnership's dissolution process. Therefore, prior to dissolution, partnership property cannot be claimed as homestead property by an individual partner. Consequently, Buchman's arguments regarding a voided transfer to his spouse and lack of consent from her are rendered moot. The property remains partnership property, preventing any individual partner from claiming an exemption or legally transferring it to another party. The court affirmed the Orders on appeal.
