In Re Estate of McGinty
258 So. 2d 450 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a provision of a state constitution conflicts with a state statute, the constitutional provision prevails and impliedly repeals the inconsistent statute. A restraint on the devise of homestead property is therefore limited to the circumstances expressly stated in the constitution, which in Florida requires the owner to be survived by a spouse or minor child.
Facts:
- Thomas J. McGinty, a widower, owned a residence in Palm Beach County, Florida, that qualified as his homestead.
- McGinty created a will that devised his homestead property to one of his daughters, Patricia Ann McGinty.
- McGinty died, survived by his four children.
- At the time of McGinty's death, all four of his surviving children were adults over the age of twenty-one.
Procedural Posture:
- The will of Thomas J. McGinty was presented for probate in the County Judge's Court for Palm Beach County, the court of first instance.
- The trial court ruled that the devise of the homestead to Patricia Ann McGinty was invalid under Florida Statutes § 731.05(1), finding no conflict between the statute and the state constitution.
- The trial court's judgment directly passed on the validity of a Florida statute.
- The case was then appealed directly from the County Judge's Court to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 provision restricting the devise of a homestead only when the owner is survived by a 'spouse or minor child' repeal by implication a pre-existing state statute that restricts the devise if the owner is survived by a 'widow or lineal descendants'?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyd, J.
Yes. The Florida Constitution's provision, which limits the restriction on devising a homestead to instances where the owner is survived by a spouse or minor child, repeals the inconsistent and broader statutory restriction. The court reasoned that the class of persons designated as 'minor children' in the 1968 Constitution is substantially different from and inconsistent with the term 'lineal descendants' in the older Florida Statute § 731.05(1). Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the state, its provisions control, and any restraints on an individual's right to devise property at death should not be extended beyond what the Constitution expressly allows.
Dissenting - Adkins, J.
No. The state statute is not repealed by the constitutional provision because the two are not in direct conflict. The dissent argued that a state constitution serves as a limitation on legislative power, not a grant of it. Therefore, the legislature is free to enact laws as long as they do not violate a constitutional prohibition. The constitutional provision establishes a minimum protection for homesteads (cannot be devised if there is a minor child), but it does not prohibit the legislature from providing additional, more restrictive protections, such as prohibiting devise if there are any lineal descendants.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the hierarchy of law within Florida, affirming that a newer, specific constitutional provision supersedes a conflicting, older statute. It significantly narrowed the restriction on the devise of homestead property, changing the long-standing rule that the presence of any adult child could prevent a homeowner from leaving their home to a chosen heir. This ruling expanded the testamentary freedom of homestead owners who do not have a surviving spouse or minor children, allowing for more flexible estate planning.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Estate of McGinty