I was surprised this was allowed since Florida has allowed OJ and other dubious people to be shielded under it’s homestead law. Does anyone know why this case was different? (Please note I’m not sticking up for the Madoffs here, just interested in the issue)
The law was changed because of OJ.
OK, didn’t realize that.
This house was probably not his homesteaded. For example in some state there is a value limit on a house that can be homesteaded. In Texas for example there is no limit on value but there is a limit on size. An unban homestead can’t be more than an acre and a rural homestead cannot be larger than 200 acres. Again I say, why does anybody live anywhere except Texas.
I don’t know the exact details of the situation, but for a case supporting the position that federal forfeiture law trumps the Florida Constitution, see United States of America v. David Emory Fleet. 498 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2007)
Bluemoon, I’m pretty sure FL still has unlimited value protection. I’m guessing that what sets this case apart is that the Madoff house was actually bought with money obtained through fraud.