Davis v. Davis
864 So. 2d 458, 2003 WL 23005382 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, the limitation restricting a homestead to the 'residence of the owner or the owner's family' applies only to homesteads located within a municipality. This limitation does not apply to homesteads outside a municipality, which may consist of up to 160 contiguous acres, including portions used for commercial purposes.
Facts:
- Horace Davis and his wife, Carolyn Davis, resided on a piece of real property owned by Horace.
- The property was located in an unincorporated portion of Nassau County, Florida, meaning it was outside any municipality.
- The property consisted of less than 160 acres of contiguous land.
- On a portion of the property separate from the couple's residence, Horace Davis operated a mobile home park for rental income.
- Horace Davis died on August 17, 2000, survived by his wife, Carolyn Davis.
Procedural Posture:
- After Horace Davis's death, his estate entered administration.
- Carolyn Davis, the appellant, petitioned the trial court to have the entire property, including the mobile home park, declared as constitutionally protected homestead property.
- The appellee, as personal representative of the estate, objected, arguing the mobile home park portion did not qualify as homestead property because it was used to produce rental income.
- The trial court agreed with the appellee and entered an order ruling that the property upon which the mobile home park was located was not homestead property.
- Carolyn Davis, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Florida Constitution's limitation of a homestead to the 'residence of the owner or the owner's family' apply to a homestead located outside a municipality that includes a portion of land used for commercial purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, J.
No. The language in the Florida Constitution limiting a homestead to the residence of the owner or the owner's family does not apply to homesteads located outside a municipality. A plain reading of Article X, section 4 reveals that a semicolon grammatically separates the provision for homesteads outside a municipality (up to 160 contiguous acres) from the provision for homesteads within a municipality, where the 'residence' limitation is found. This interpretation is consistent with over a century of Florida Supreme Court precedent interpreting similar language in prior state constitutions, which consistently held that such residential use limitations were inapplicable to homesteads outside of municipalities. Therefore, the entire contiguous tract of land, including the portion used as a mobile home park, qualifies as homestead property.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the significant distinction between urban and rural homesteads under Florida law. It solidifies the principle that rural homestead protection is geographically broad, encompassing up to 160 acres regardless of whether portions of the land are used for commercial or income-producing activities. The ruling provides certainty for rural property owners, ensuring that the use of part of their land for business, farming, or rental purposes does not jeopardize the homestead status of the entire contiguous parcel. For future cases, this holding reinforces a textual and historical approach to interpreting the homestead provision, emphasizing grammatical structure and long-standing judicial construction.
