Jhelum Enterprises, LLC, v. Oceanside Automotive Service and Towing, LLC, et al

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
JHELUM ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company;
André Gibson, Chartered, Assignee,
Appellant,
v.
NORMAN L. DESMARAIS, JR., and OCEANSIDE AUTOMOTIVE
SERVICE AND TOWING, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Appellees.
No. 4D2025-0554
[March 25, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach 	County; 	Gregory 	M. 	Keyser, 	Judge; 	L.T. 	Case 	No.
502010CA001935XXXXMB.
André A. Gibson of André Gibson, Chartered, North Miami Beach, for
appellant.
Norman L. Desmarais, Boynton Beach, pro se.
LEVINE , J.
The issue presented is one of first impression: whether a reverse
mortgage line of credit, which is accessible at the homeowner’s discretion,
is protected under Florida’s homestead exemption. 	Appellant, a creditor
with a prior judgment who seeks to execute and garnish the appellee
homeowner’s reverse mortgage line of credit, says no. 	Appellant claims
that the protection of homestead no longer protects the line of credit since
it is a “liquid asset.” We are of a different opinion. 	In our view, under the
facts of this case, the unaccessed funds in the reverse mortgage line of
credit retained their homestead protection. 	This is because whether the
homeowner draws on the remaining funds is a mere contingency that has
not yet occurred and may never occur. And until it occurs, the protection
of homestead remains unrelenting and steadfast. 	As such, we affirm the
trial court’s refusal to order the homeowner to immediately access and
distribute 	those 	funds. 	We 	affirm 	all 	other 	issues 	without 	further
comment.

2
Appellant, 	Jhelum 	Enterprises, 	LLC 	(“creditor”), 	obtained 	two
judgments 	against 	Oceanside 	Automotive 	Service 	and 	Towing, 	LLC,
totaling $54,863.89. 	The creditor moved for supplementary proceedings
and to implead third parties. 	In 2011, the trial court granted the motion
and entered a final judgment, finding that Oceanside’s sole officer, appellee
Norman Desmarais (“homeowner”), fraudulently transferred Oceanside’s
assets to himself and his newly formed company to avoid satisfying the
judgment. 	The final judgment held the homeowner liable to the creditor
for the total amount of the creditor’s judgments.
In 2018, the homeowner obtained a reverse mortgage, specifically a
home equity conversion mortgage (“HECM”) with a line of credit.1 In 2022,
he refinanced and obtained a new HECM. The 2022 HECM loan agreement
stated the homeowner could request loan advances under a line of credit
payment option in amounts, and at times, determined by the homeowner.
The 	January 	2024 	annual 	reverse 	mortgage 	statement 	showed 	the
homeowner had an available line of credit of $61,685.23.
The creditor, through its assignee, obtained writs of garnishment as to
the lender, Longbridge Financial, LLC (“lender”); the servicer, Compu-Link
Corp. of MI (“servicer”); and Capital One, where the homeowner had a bank
account. 	In response to the writs of garnishment, the homeowner filed
three claims for exemption based on his homestead exemption. The lender
1 A reverse mortgage, generally speaking, has been explained as follows:
A reverse mortgage is a financial instrument designed to allow
older homeowners to convert their home equity into liquid assets.
In the typical reverse-mortgage transaction, the borrower receives a
loan—in either a lump sum, a series of periodic payments, or a line
of credit—that is secured by a mortgage on his home. 	Unlike a
traditional 	mortgage 	loan, 	a 	reverse-mortgage 	loan 	generally
needn’t be repaid until a specific “triggering” event occurs—usually,
the borrower’s death or the sale of his home. Upon the occurrence
of that event, either (1) the estate will pay off the loan or (2) the
lender will foreclose on the home to recover the money it lent.
Reverse mortgages are ordinarily “non-recourse” loans, meaning
that even if a borrower or his estate fails to repay the loan when due
and the sale of the home doesn’t cover the outstanding balance, the
lender can’t go after any of the borrower’s (or his estate’s) other
assets.
Estate of Jones v. Live Well Fin., Inc., 902 F.3d 1337, 1338-39 (11th Cir. 2018)
(citations omitted).

3
and servicer filed an amended answer to the writs of garnishment, stating
that the homeowner had notably not requested any additional funds since
service of the writ of garnishment. 	The lender and servicer maintained
they were not indebted to the homeowner because they had no pending
obligation to disburse. 	Capital One also filed an answer, disclosing a
checking account with merely $250.24 that was not located in Florida.
The 	creditor 	moved 	for 	permanent 	injunction 	or, 	alternatively,
distribution of property held by the lender and servicer. 	The creditor
alleged that because the homeowner previously used reverse mortgage
proceeds for non-exempt general purposes, the remaining undistributed
proceeds 	in 	the 	reverse 	mortgage 	line 	of 	credit 	lost 	their 	homestead
exemption. 	The creditor further argued that the undistributed proceeds
were subject to garnishment because the lender and servicer are obligated
to 	distribute 	the 	proceeds 	upon 	request 	from 	the 	homeowner. 	The
homeowner opposed the motion, arguing that the creditor could not force
the distribution of undisbursed funds from the line of credit that may
never be drawn.
The 	case 	proceeded 	to 	an 	evidentiary 	hearing, 	during 	which 	the
homeowner testified that the reverse mortgage line of credit allowed him
to borrow against a certain amount of equity in his home. 	The reverse
mortgage had paid off the mortgage he previously owed on the property,
and, as such, he was not making any further payments to the bank. 	The
homeowner made four prior withdrawals from the line of credit between
2019 and 2023 for a total of $17,000. 	All reverse mortgage draws were
deposited directly into his Capital One account. 	The homeowner used
some of the money to make repairs to his homestead, but used the rest of
the funds from the line of credit for vacations and general living expenses.
The 	homeowner 	further 	testified 	that 	he 	still 	had 	approximately
$62,000 that he could draw on from the reverse mortgage line of credit.
He had not made any requests to withdraw that money and had no
intention of requesting it. 	The homeowner conceded that he might want
to withdraw money in the future to fix and maintain his homestead. 	The
homeowner confirmed that the line of credit did not distribute set monthly
payments to him and that he had sole discretion whether to request a
draw.
The servicer’s corporate representative testified by deposition that when
the homeowner makes a request to draw from his line of credit, the servicer
is then obligated to make the payment. The homeowner earns interest on
the line of credit. 	At the time of the deposition, the homeowner had an
available line of credit of $63,273.77. 	All that is required to make a

4
distribution is the homeowner’s request. The reverse mortgage is due and
payable if the homeowner dies, if the homeowner no longer resides in the
property as his principal residence, or if the homeowner fails to pay taxes
and insurance. The loan is a non-recourse loan, meaning the homeowner
has no personal liability for payment of the debt.
The trial court entered two final judgments. 	The first final judgment,
which pertained to the lender and the servicer, found the line of credit was
not immediately accessible to a creditor and, thus, the undistributed
balance qualified for homestead protection. In the second final judgment,
the trial court ordered the homeowner to distribute the $250 in the Capital
One bank account to the creditor’s assignee. 	The creditor, through its
assignee, appeals both final judgments.
Whether undrawn funds in a line of credit on a reverse mortgage are
protected under Florida’s homestead exemption is a question of law that
we review de novo. See JBK Assocs. v. Sill Bros., Inc., 191 So. 3d 879, 881
(Fla. 2016) (stating that entitlement to the homestead exemption presents
a pure question of law reviewed de novo); Spector v. Spector, 226 So. 3d
256, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“We review the court’s legal conclusions
regarding the application of homestead protections de novo.”).
Section 	77.04, 	Florida 	Statutes 	(2023), 	allows 	for 	garnishment 	of
“tangible or intangible personal property of defendant the garnishee has
in his or her possession or control . . . .” 	However, Florida’s Constitution
provides that a person’s homestead is “exempt from forced sale under
process of any court, and no judgment, decree or execution shall be a lien
thereon,” 	except 	for 	the 	following 	debts: 	“the 	payment 	of 	taxes 	and
assessments 	thereon, 	obligations 	contracted 	for 	the 	purchase,
improvement or repair thereof, or obligations contracted for house, field or
other labor performed on the realty.” 	Art. X, § 4, Fla. Const. 	The
homestead exemption also provides temporary protection for the proceeds
from a voluntary sale if the seller intends to reinvest the proceeds in
another homestead within a reasonable time. Orange Brevard Plumbing &
Heating Co. v. La Croix, 137 So. 2d 201, 206 (Fla. 1962). 	The homestead
“provision is to be liberally construed in favor of protecting the homestead.”
JBK Assocs., 191 So. 3d at 881. 	The objecting party has the burden “to
make a strong showing that the claimant is not entitled to the claimed
exemption.” 	Id. (citation omitted).
Here, the creditor has not made a “strong showing” that the homeowner
is not entitled to the protections of the homestead exemption. 	Thus, we
find that the trial court correctly determined that undistributed funds in
the 	reverse 	mortgage 	line 	of 	credit 	are 	protected 	under 	Florida’s

5
constitutional homestead exemption. Pursuant to the loan agreement, the
undistributed 	funds 	are 	accessible 	only 	when 	requested 	by 	the
homeowner. 	Consequently, 	the 	homeowner’s 	right 	to 	the 	funds 	is
contingent on whether he makes a request for the funds in the line of
credit. 	At the time of the hearing, the homeowner had no outstanding
requests to draw any funds on the line of credit, and the homeowner
testified that he did not intend to make future draws.2 	Obviously, under
these facts, the homeowner cannot be compelled to borrow funds from the
line of credit.
Now, this result would be different if the reverse mortgage involved a
designated stream of automatic payments. 	In that scenario, the resulting
payments could be subject to garnishment. 	See United States v. Capital
Tax, No. 04 CV 4138, 2011 WL 2565690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2011)
(finding that the homestead exemption does not apply to a stream of
payments under a reverse mortgage); Cameron v. Ewing, 38 A.3d 611, 616-
17 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2012) (holding that monthly reverse mortgage
payments 	due 	to 	a 	judgment 	debtor 	were 	subject 	to 	execution 	and
garnishment as debt owed to the judgment debtor). 	When there is a
stream of automatic payments, the homeowner would not be compelled to
access 	the 	reverse 	mortgage 	line 	of 	credit. 	Further, 	the 	stream 	of
automatic payments, generally speaking, would be the type of liquid asset
accessible to garnishment and execution.3 	But that scenario does not
exist in this case.
Affording 	homestead 	protection 	to 	the 	undistributed 	funds 	is
compatible 	with 	the 	goal 	of 	an 	HECM, 	which 	is 	to 	assist 	elderly
homeowners in remaining in their homes. 	The U.S. Code states: “The
purpose” of an HECM is “to meet the special needs of elderly homeowners
by reducing the effect of the economic hardship . . . through the insurance
of home equity conversion mortgages to permit the conversion of a portion
of accumulated home equity into liquid assets.” 	12 U.S.C. § 1715z-
20(a)(1). 	As the trial court accurately stated: “[I]f a debtor could be forced
to withdraw funds in a reverse mortgage and line of credit to satisfy
creditors, this will go toward defeating the purpose of a reverse mortgage
to help the debtor remain[] living in that homestead property.” 	This
2 For these reasons, the undistributed funds in the reverse mortgage line of credit
were also not garnishable “property” of the homeowner. 	See § 77.04, Fla. Stat.
(2023) (allowing for garnishment of the defendant’s property in the garnishee’s
possession or control).
3 Black’s Law Dictionary defines “liquid asset” by cross-reference to “current
asset,” which means “[a]n asset that is readily convertible into cash.”

6
provision of federal law in general seeks to protect homesteads. 	This is
consistent and compatible with the homestead protections of the Florida
Constitution.
Although there are no Florida cases on point, we find Bowles v. Goss,
309 P.3d 150 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013), to be instructive. 	Bowles held that
a judgment debtor could not be forced to borrow money secured by a
reverse mortgage on homestead property to pay a judgment, as doing so
“would defeat the purpose of the homestead exemption statute and, in
essence, force the sale of exempt property by requiring a judgment debtor
to convert homestead equity into a non-exempt asset subject to a judgment
creditor’s lien.” 	Id. at 157. 	The court emphasized that while the debtor
had $31,000 remaining on his reverse mortgage line of credit, because the
lender was not obligated to pay any amount until the debtor made a
specific request, any debt related to this amount was only contingent. 	Id.
However, if the debtor voluntarily withdraws any of the remaining funds,
he may request a hearing to show the funds are to be used for reinvestment
in another homestead or for some other purpose permitted by law. Id.
Like in Bowles, here the homeowner cannot be compelled to access
funds from the reverse mortgage line of credit to pay the judgment. Having
the power to access funds under the line of credit is a contingent interest
that cannot be executed on by a creditor.4 There is, of course, a distinction
between forcing a debtor to draw funds from a reverse mortgage line of
credit, which is impermissible, and reaching funds the debtor voluntarily
withdraws, which is permissible when the funds have lost their homestead
protection. 	The trial court recognized this distinction when it found the
funds in the Capital One bank account were subject to garnishment due
to the proceeds losing their homestead exemption protection.
If a homeowner withdraws funds from the line of credit in the future,
those funds could be subject to garnishment, depending on the intended
use of the funds. 	The disbursement of funds from the reverse mortgage
line of credit could be comparable to the funds a homeowner receives upon
the sale of the homestead. 	See Orange Brevard, 137 So. 2d at 206. 	If a
homeowner, at the time of the request to withdraw funds, intends to repair
or maintain the existing homestead, or to purchase a new homestead,
then, 	under 	the 	analysis 	of 	Orange 	Brevard, 	the 	funds 	could 	have
homestead protection. However, if the funds are to be used for other non-
exempt purposes, then the funds would not have homestead protection.
4 This contingency would be true, in theory, even if this case involved a line of
credit not associated with a homestead.

7
In conclusion, the trial court properly found the undistributed funds in
the 	reverse 	mortgage 	line 	of 	credit 	were 	protected 	by 	Florida’s
constitutional homestead exemption. Whether the homeowner will access
these funds, and for what purpose, in the future is a mere contingency. In
the meantime, we afford homestead protection consistent with the Florida
Constitution, as well as the federal code, to the reverse mortgage line of
credit. 	As such, we affirm.
Affirmed.
CONNER and S HAW , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.