Affidavit For Homestead Exemption Where Property Is Owned By A: Fill & Download for Free

It depends on where your property is and what the situation is.Just going to the Tax Assessor and saying that you would like to pay less in taxes probably won’t help. But in some jurisdictions, there are ways to lessen your property tax burden.There are two available to the individual property owner where I live in Tennessee. One is probably of little value but if you are over 65, you can “freeze” your taxes. That’s not as good as it sounds. What that does is lock you in to the same tax from now on. What your tax is now will never increase as long as you are alive and live on the property that you own. See? Limited value. Literally.The second is much more friendly and can save you a lot over the course of your lifetime. If you own more than 15 acres and sign an affidavit that you are engaged in farming activities that produce an income - any income at any time - you get a “Homestead Exemption”. It can drop your tax rate by as much as 40% a year. I grow trees. Someday, they’ll be mature enough to sell.I mentioned options available to individuals. If you are a company seeking to relocate to the community and apply for a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) program, as long as you plan to invest a certain amount of money and hire a certain number of local people at a qualifying rate of pay, you can have your property taxes stopped for a period that can’t exceed 20 years. Sometimes that’s accompanied by free property. There is what amounts to a lease payment on the property that they “give” you but it’s fairly low. The idea is to help a new startup get on their feet so they can provide jobs and eventually pay taxes on the much-improved property, thereby increasing the tax revenue. It’s tricky but as long as everybody operates in good faith, it works.

What is a judgment?A judgment is a court order saying that the Defendant owes you money.You are now a “judgment creditor.” A judgment is automatically recorded in the official records of the county where the Defendant was sued or where the order was entered. As a judgment creditor, you can have a lien placed on the Defendant’s property which may prevent him or her from selling the property without paying the judgment.You can also have the sheriff seize and sell any non-exempt property the Defendant owns, garnish non-exempt wages, or take non-exempt bank accounts, etc.If at any time the Defendant pays you in full, you must give the Defendant a “Satisfaction of Judgment.” You may get this form from the Clerk’s office.A certified copy of the Satisfaction of Judgment should be recorded in every county where the judgment was recorded.How do I collect a lien on property?Get a certified copy of your Final Judgment and record it in each county where the Defendant owns real property. If the Defendant later tries to sell this property, he or she will not be able to give good title to a buyer unless the recorded judgment is satisfied or paid in full. (See Florida Statute 55.10)In Hillsborough County, you can obtain a certified copy from the Clerk’s office in Room 103 of the George E. Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 33602. There is a charge for copies and certification. Take the certified copy of your Final Judgment to the Recording Division of the Clerk’s office at 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. in Tampa. Ask the clerk to record the judgment. There is a charge for recording.How do I collect on non-exempt property (execution and levy)?See the Florida Department of State’s “How to Collect a Judgment in Florida”The seizing of property by the sheriff is called a levy. Once the sheriff has levied on the property, the sheriff will then sell it, and pay you out of the money the sheriff receives from the sale. This process is called execution. There are a number of steps you must take.Step 1. Once you get your judgment, you should first obtain a judgment lien by recording a Judgment Lien Certificate with the Department of State. This is not always crucial, but it is a very good idea. How you do it is explained below.Step 2. In order to get the sheriff to levy upon (to seize) the judgment debtor’s property, you must first locate the property. The sheriff won’t do this for you. Remember that there are many kinds of property the sheriff can seize. Land and buildings are called real property. Movable things, like cars, horses, boats, furniture, and jewelry are called personal property. There are some kinds of property the sheriff cannot levy on. The main kind of property the sheriff cannot seize is a person’s home. A person’s homestead is exempt from execution. The judgment debtor may also select personal property worth up to $1,000, and one motor vehicle worth up to $1,000, as exempt property. Only people have exemptions. If your judgment is against a corporation or a partnership, the sheriff can seize all of its property. Of course, the sheriff can only levy on property the judgment debtor truly owns – not property owned by somebody else, such as leased property.Step 3. Once you have located property the sheriff can seize, you take your judgment to the Clerk of the Court that issued the judgment and ask for a document called a Writ of Execution. This tells the sheriff to seize property of the judgment debtor to satisfy your judgment. You then deliver the writ to the sheriff’s office in the county in which the property is located. You must also give the sheriff written instructions, called Instructions for Levy. These instructions describe the property, and tell the sheriff where it is located. The sheriff will require you to deposit some money to pay the sheriff’s fees and costs. You will get your deposit back if the execution is successful.Step 4. Before the property can be sold, you have to check the Department of State’s internet website, at Florida Department of State, to see if there are any judgment liens filed under the name of the Judgment Debtor. You must also check the Florida Secured Transaction Registry Florida Secured Transaction Registry for creditors who have filed UCC security interests in the name of the Judgment Debtor. You must notify all of these people of the time and place of the sale. You then give the sheriff a signed affidavit, on which you provide the information contained in all the judgment lien certificates filed against the Judgment Debtor.Step 5. Once the notices have been sent, the sale must be properly advertised in a local newspaper. Then, at the designated time and place, the sheriff will sell the property at a public auction. You can bid at the auction if you want to. The highest bidder for cash in hand pays the price to the sheriff and becomes the owner of the property.Step 6. The sheriff will pay out the money received from the sale in this order: First, the sheriff pays the sheriff’s costs, and if the sale price covers these costs, you will get your deposit back. Second, the sheriff pays you $500 for your costs (whether you spent that much or not). Third, if somebody obtained a Judgment Lien before you did, the sheriff pays that person before paying you. If others have filed before you, the sheriff pays everybody in the order of filing. If the sheriff runs out of money before getting to you, you get nothing more. This explains why it is such a good idea to obtain a Judgment Lien as soon as possible. If no judgment liens have ever been filed, the sheriff will pay you first, and anything left over will go back to the judgment debtor. But it’s still a good idea to file as soon as possible. If you don’t, there is always a chance that somebody might file during the execution process and come in ahead of you.IMPORTANT: If you previously delivered a writ of execution to a sheriff, you cannot rely on that. You must file a judgment lien certificate before October 1, 2003, in order to hold that place in line.How do I garnish non-exempt funds in a bank account?In the case where the judgment was issued, file a Motion stating the amount of the judgment and whether or not the Defendant has property on which a levy can be made to satisfy the judgment and requesting that a Writ of Garnishment be issued.Complete Fla.R.Civ.P. Form 1.907(a) – Writ of Garnishment. Use the case number and parties’ names as they appear on the judgment. The garnishee is the bank where the Defendant maintains an account.Take the completed Writ of Garnishment to the Clerk’s office and request that they issue the Writ. There is a fee and a deposit required. Check with the Clerk’s office for the amounts required.Take the Writ to the Sheriff’s office and pay the fee required to have the Sheriff serve the Writ on the Garnishee (Defendant’s bank).The Garnishee will have 20 days after they have been served to file an answer to the Writ.5 days after the Garnishee files an answer, or after the time for the answer to be filed has expired, mail the following documents to the Defendant and anyone else named in the Garnishee’s answer as having any ownership interest in the Defendant’s account: 1) a copy of the writ, 2) a copy of the Garnishee’s answer, 3) a notice with the information required by Florida Statute 77.055, and 4) a certificate of service.File the certificate of service with the Clerk’s office, in the case where the judgment and the Writ were issued.If the Garnishee’s Answer asserts that the Garnishee is not holding any funds of the Defendant and you dispute this, you must schedule a hearing.If neither the Defendant nor the Garnishee files a written dispute as to the issuance of the writ within 20 days after the writ is served, then a Garnishment Judgment should be issued and you should be paid by the Garnishee.How do I continue to garnish non-exempt wages?In the case where the judgment was issued, file a Motion stating the amount of the judgment and whether or not the Defendant has property on which a levy can be made to satisfy the judgment and requesting that a Writ of Garnishment be issued.Complete Fla.R.Civ.P. Form 1.907(b) – Continuing Writ of Garnishment Against Salary or Wages. Use the case number and parties’ names as they appear on the judgment. The garnishee is the Defendant’s employer.Take the completed Writ of Garnishment to the Clerk’s office and request that they issue the Writ. There is a fee and a deposit required. Check with the Clerk’s office for the amounts required.Take the Writ to the Sheriff’s office and pay the fee required to have the Sheriff serve the Writ on the Garnishee (Defendant’s employer).The Garnishee will have 20 days after they have been served to file an answer to the Writ.5 days after the Garnishee files an answer, or after the time for the answer to be filed has expired, mail the following documents to the Defendant: 1) a copy of the writ, 2) a copy of the Garnishee’s answer, 3) a notice with the information required by Florida Statute 77.055, and 4) a certificate of service.File the certificate of service with the Clerk’s office, in the case where the judgment and the Writ were issued.If the Garnishee’s Answer asserts that the Garnishee is not holding any funds of the Defendant and you dispute this, you must schedule a hearing.If neither the Defendant nor the Garnishee files a written dispute as to the issuance of the writ within 20 days after the writ is served, then a Garnishment Judgment should be issued and you should be paid by the Garnishee.https://www.floridalawhelp.org/content/how-to-collect-judgement

The original ‘justification’ as it were, goes back to the British constitution, long before the US constitution was established. One of the rights was an inherent right of resistance to tyranny. This can be found both in Locke’s writings in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, and in Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, as well as within the parliamentary debate on the revolution. It was also discussed in part in its history in treaty law in some of Earl Grey’s recorded letters from William Walton, regarding treaties with Portugal, as part of the privileges and immunities of British Subjects.Second Treatise of Government by John LockeSect. 192. By the second, the inhabitants of any country, who are descended, and derive a title to their estates from those who are subdued, and had a government forced upon them against their free consents, retain a right to the possession of their ancestors, though they consent not freely to the government, whose hard conditions were by force imposed on the possessors of that country: for the first conqueror never having had a title to the land of that country, the people who are the descendants of, or claim under those who were forced to submit to the yoke of a government by constraint, have always a right to shake it off, and free themselves from the usurpation or tyranny which the sword hath brought in upon them, till their rulers put them under such a frame of government as they willingly and of choice consent to. Who doubts but the Grecian Christians, descendants of the ancient possessors of that country, may justly cast off the Turkish yoke, which they have so long groaned under, whenever they have an opportunity to do it? For no government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it; which they can never be supposed to do, till either they are put in a full state of liberty to chuse their government and governors, or at least till they have such standing laws, to which they have by themselves or their representatives given their free consent, and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have, that no body can take away any part of it without their own consent, without which, men under any government are not in the state of freemen, but are direct slaves under the force of war.The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803Absolute Rights of Individuals - LONANG Institute5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other. And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. so long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in its full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.A Letter, Addressed to the Right Honourable Earl Grey, &c.&c.&cIn 1647, a petition in the name of the British Residents was presented to John IV, setting for that, "Being entitled to various privileges,such as bearing arms by day and by night,a nd others, the village justices vexed and disturbed them."But not a single case of serious or intentional ill-treatment was adduced; notwithstanding the long lapse of time to which the petition referred and the confusion which special privileges are liable to create. Wheron a law was passed, embodying all the privileges, liberties, and exemptions, granted by the former kings in favour of British subjects, and enjoining thus; "Let them make use of arms, as expressed in their privileges, and for this end the charters and mandates they petition for shall be granted and drawn out for them, wherein shall be included the articles which speak of arms, and that other Justices cannot enter their houses without an order from this conveancy, and all bailiffs and constables or any other officer of justice who shall do any thing to the contrary, shall immediately be notified by the scrivener of the said Conservatory, that without the approbation of this court, they meddle not with these privileged persons, under the penalty of being suspended from their offices and falling under our displeasure," &c.The rights did not arise from a vacuum, as many of their detractors would purport. Many of the colonists assumed that said privileges and immunities were protected to the citizenry (hence their rather… strident insistence that those of African ancestry should never share that citizenship). See also: The case of Prudence Crandall, 1833, or the case of Dred Scott v Sandford which used the same reasoning. (consider it extra points to read through them.)Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police Page 60 U. S. 417 regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.It lists quite clearly what the privileges and immunities of citizens are… and one of those were the right to keep and bear arms. It was inherent in the very title of ‘citizen’ and outside the power of the state to affect. One might also notice ‘special laws’, which separated them from the rest of society, targeting them outside of the Constitution’s prohibition against separate laws for different classes of persons.Then came along the Slaughter-house case, where they claimed that said privileges and immunities did not exist, then used that same case to claim in Cruikshanks that the civil rights law, passed at the end of the Civil War, didn’t reach to those official actors or the second amendment.Yet, when we examine the roots of the right, it is quite clear that to which the right extended, and the intent of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution.Let us examine, for instance, Justice Story’s statement on the subject.Amendments to the Constitution - LONANG Institute*Sec. 1889.** The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”**Sec. 1890.** The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.There is a good section in the same document on preambles and their effect in law… that all they do is set out the reasons, and they give no powers or effect to law, only clarification.§ 459. The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all juridical discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute. We find it laid down in some of our earliest authorities in the common law; and civilians are accustomed to a similar expression, cessante legis praemio, cessat et ipsa lex.Probably it has a foundation in the exposition of every code of written law, from the universal principle of interpretation, that the will and intention of the legislature is to be regarded and followed. It is properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacting part; for if they are clear and unambiguous, there seems little room for interpretation, except in cases leading to an obvious absurdity, or to a direct overthrow of the intention expressed in the preamble.§ 460. There does not seem any reason why, in a fundamental law or constitution of government, an equal attention should not be given to the intention of the framers, as stated in the preamble. And accordingly we find, that it has been constantly referred to by statesmen and jurists to aid them in the exposition of its provisions.§ 461. The language of the preamble of the constitution was probably in a good measure drawn from that of the third article of the confederation, which declared, that “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare. And we accordingly find, that the first resolution proposed, in the convention which framed the constitution, was, that the articles of the confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.§ 462. And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, “to provide for the common defence.” No one can doubt, that this does not enlarge the powers of congress to pass any measures, which they may deem useful for the common defence.But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one would promote, and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation to be adopted? Are we at liberty, upon any principles of reason, or common sense, to adopt a restrictive meaning, which will defeat an avowed object of the constitution, when another equally natural and more appropriate to the object is before us? Would not this be to destroy an instrument by a measure of its words, which that instrument itself repudiates?The so-called ‘militia clause’ of the second amendment, in legal contemplation, is a mere preamble, it bears no power in its own right. It does not limit the operative clause, it does not trump it, it does not affect it beyond expressing the intent of the founders. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Let us further examine the 14th amendment, and its debates on what articles were included under its aegis against state authority.Congressional Debates of the 14th Amendment*The next question is whether this act infringes that section of the Constitution which declares that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?' "The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.It continues:Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be — for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.Since the passage of that amendment, it has been pretended these debates do not exist, that there was no INTENT to actually limit state power… and the laws passed in pursuance of these matters were ignored.Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of LawYet they remain law. Our compatriots whom would restrict our rights claim that they are not ours, that they can restrict as they wish, while the plain law of the land prohibits enforcing any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom operating to that end, in any jurisdiction of the United States, be that jurisdiction that of the states, or the exclusively federal districts, commonwealths, territories, and possessions.The right was a right of resistance… a right that was stated in the debates on the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment itself.McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)There can be do doubt that the principal proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 meant to end the disarmament of African Americans in the South. In introducing the bill, Senator Trumbull described its purpose as securing to blacks the “privileges which are essential to freemen.” Id., at 474. He then pointed to the previously described Mississippi law that “prohibit[ed] any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms” and explained that the bill would “destroy” such laws. Ibid. Similarly, Representative Sidney Clarke cited disarmament of freedmen in Alabama and Mississippi as a reason to support the Civil Rights Act and to continue to deny Alabama and Mississippi representation in Congress: “I regret, sir, that justice compels me to say, to the disgrace of the Federal Government, that the ‘reconstructed’ State authorities of Mississippi were allowed to rob and disarm our veteran soldiers and arm the rebels fresh from the field of treasonable strife. Sir, the disarmed loyalists of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are powerless to-day, and oppressed by the pardoned and encouraged rebels of those States. They appeal to the American Congress for protection. In response to this appeal I shall vote for every just measure of protection, for I do not intend to be among the treacherous violators of the solemn pledge of the nation.” Id., at 1838–1839.Yet our erstwhile compatriots insist that the individual right was created out of whole cloth.In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong. Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:“Every man … should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.” Ibid.I fear that we have a legal infirmity, and one or the other sets of laws MUST fall. We have a choice of ending all laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations or customs accomplishing such deprivations, or we can ignore the civil rights acts for another century and a half.*As I have already remarked, section one is a restriction upon the States, and does not, of itself, confer any power upon Congress. The power which Congress has, under this amendment, is derived, not from that section, but from the fifth section, which gives it authority to pass laws which are appropriate to the attainment of the great object of the amendment. I look upon the first section, taken in connection with the fifth, as very important. It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty. That, sir, is republican government, as I understand it, and the only one which can claim the praise of a just Government. Without this principle of equal justice to all men and equal protection under the shield of the law, there is no republican government and none that is really worth maintaining.edit: Typo/italics