Homestead Equity Uses for the Elderly
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • September 22, 2025

For many families, the home is the single asset with the most value. I understand that financial planners do not like to include the equity in the home when making determinations of wealth, but sometimes it is worth considering.


Three questions and accompanying scenarios especially come to mind for the Elder Law practitioner.


First, how can a client use the equity in the home to fulfill the client's desire to age in place?


Second, does the client need to spend all of the home's value before Medicaid will help when moving into long term care?

Third, what, if anything, can be left by the client for the children once the client is gone?


In Florida, the answers are as follow.


If the client has significant equity in the client's home, a Home Equity Line of Credit ("HELOC") or a Reverse Mortgage are options to be considered.


The differences between the two are that a HELOC tends to be less expensive way of accessing the equity in the home, at least initially, but does require monthly repayments to be made on the loan. So, the borrower witl need to include some repayment in the monthly household budget.


The borrower has greater options about where the borrower lives. For instance, if the borrower chooses to go live in an assisted living facility, as long as the HELOC is being repaid, there is no issue. This means, among other things, the borrower could rent the property out and use the net proceeds to pay the HELOC. (There are other issues this would bring up including those regarding homestead, however.)


A Reverse Mortgage, on the other hand, tends to be more expensive (typically higher interest rates and, often, origination expenses) but does not have to be paid back until the borrower dies or otherwise stops living in the home. This means that if the borrower wants to live at home, the borrower can use the equity to pay for household expenses, taxes, home health aides or companions, lawn care and any other duties the borrower can not, or maybe just does not want to, perform.


Does the dient need to spend all of the home's value before Medicaid will help with long term care? Not in Florida, no.


In 2025 if a single persons owns a home with less than $730,000.00 in equity and that person need Medicaid to help with long term care bills (nursing home), as long as the patient otherwise meets Medicaid requirements, the patient may keep their home. When the person passes away, the family can inherit the home without worrying about that particular asset being subject to Medicaid State Estate Recovery ("claw back"). With the right plan in place, the last, possibly most valuable asset of the nursing home patient, the client can create the legacy for the children after the patient is gone.


More than $730,000.00 in equity? Maybe the client can borrow against the house and use the funds (not gifting the funds) thereby lowering the actual equity down to below $730,000.00? Buying a more expensive car, putting on that new roof the insurance company is going to require soon anyway, upgrading to impact windows, remodeling the kitchen with all new appliances and flooring throughout, taking a trip to see loved ones, paying estimated future income taxes: all of these are ways to spend that "excess" equity.


For a married couple when one of them is in a nursing home and the other is not and remains in the community, this community spouse does not have to spend down any of the equity of the house the couple owns.



Finally, if a homestead is left to someone who is descended from the homeowner's grandparent (l know, it is a long way to say blood relative), the home can be left to such a person without having to pay Medicaid any of the asset the homestead represents. Further, because of the "stepped up" basis in the house, leaving a home can truly create a way of ensuring an inheritance which many people consider very valuable indeed.


Share this article

And furthermore....

By Portia B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • April 2, 2026
Another Warning from our Appellate Court Regarding Al I hate to repeat myself, but.... The March 25, 2026 release of written opinions from our own Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) has another warning to persons venturing into the Court system. As you may know, I wrote about a warning from the 4th DCA about a self- represented Appellant (person seeking to have the trial court's decision overturned) using Al and the possible, but not inflicted, sanctions which could have resulted. Now, again, in Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC, the 4th DCA has again written to address this increasingly abusive use of Al in the Courts. In this more recent case, there was a contract dispute and the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (the party making the complaint...get it? "Plaint-iff" based on "Com-Plaint?"). The losing side filed an appeal, asking for the 4th DCA to overturn the decision of the trial court. Well, that went nowhere and the Plaintiff kept its win. The story here is that the person who lost at trial and on appeal, in his case and appeal to the 4th DCA apparently used Al to help write his argument. The Al manufactured ("hallucinated") prior cases which did not exist or, if they did exist, did not stand for what the person said it did. It would be as if the person made reference to Roe v. Wade (a case which does exist) and told the appeals court that it stood for the legal principal that a Jack of Spades has a higher value in poker than the King of Spades (which is absolutely not what Roe v. Wade said). Is that straight-up nonsense? Yes and as absurd as that which was submitted to the appeals court as if it were true. The Court issued another warning about the possibilities of sanctions if it is done again by the person submitting it, just like before. But, as the concurring opinion in this case points out something else (a "concurring opinion" is a written opinion which agrees with the actual opinion but has more to say). The concurring opinion points out how meaningless it is to threaten sanctions against someone who will most likely not be before the Court again. That means that the opportunity to misbehave for this person is greatly reduced. Most self-represented folks only appear once -if at all- before the appellate court. The concurring opinion said that with attorneys, it is not a problem as sanctions will work against us, seeing how we are in court so often. What is the solution? The writer of the concurring opinion doesn't know but suggests some pro-active steps. (Sanctions are, by their very nature, reactive - they are issued in response to something done.) Perhaps forcing sworn statements from the parties that they have not used Al or, if they have, exactly what the Al included; that the party submitting the Al- generated document has double-checked the sources. Something which can help us all work with the rising tide of Al, Chatbots, LLM tools.  Stay tuned!

Appellate Court Issues Warning to Non-Attorneys Filing Appeals

By Portia B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • March 26, 2026
The Florida trial courts' decisions are subject to appeal to a higher Court. This happens when a litigant (the Plaintiff or Defendant) believes the trial court made a mistake and that the mistake should be corrected. The mistake believed to have been made by the trial court can be based in the facts of the case ("that is not what the evidence showed"), the law ("that is not what the statute or other source of law says"), or both. A recent opinion from the 4th District Court of Appeal (which takes such claimed mistakes from the circuit trial courts in Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River and Okeechobee Counties) dealt with an alleged mistake of law. The person who was claiming the mistake (the Appellant), was representing herself. Without an attorney to help her write the appeal, she resorted to Artificial Intelligence ("AI"), as we can expect many people do or might start doing. The decision came back from the 4th District Court of Appeal, disagreeing with her; the appeals court found no error by the trial court. But for the use of Al, there probably would not have been any thing actually written. The 4th would have just said something like, "we find no error." However, the Al tool had "hallucinated" what other, prior District Courts' had said. In the paperwork submitted by the Appellant, she had cited certain old cases saying that these cases were opposite of what the trial court had ruled. She claimed that the trial court had used the wrong law and that she should have won. The problem, as you might have guessed, is that the cases did not exist - some of them not at all. Other cases she cited to the 4th were actual cases, but did not say what her Al asserted they said. Here is the reason everyone needs to know this: Self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as an attorney. Obviously, attorneys are not allowed to make up old cases and present them to a Court (trial or otherwise). If we do use Al to help find the old cases, we absolutely have to check to make sure that they are real and do exist. If we do not, we can be sanctioned - maybe even having to pay the other side's attorney's fees which, for an appeal, can easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars! That is a scary prospect. The self-represented litigant could have faced sanctions - just like her attorney would have had she had one. In this particular case (Roussell v. Bank of New York Mellon, Etc., decided March 11, 2026), the appellate court did NOT sanction her, but easily could have. This was probably a decision issued as a warning to all.