In Re Estate of Scholtz
543 So.2d 219 (1989)
Rule of Law:
The 1985 amendment to Article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution, which replaced the 'head of a family' requirement with ownership by 'a natural person,' eliminated the judicial doctrine of spousal abandonment, making the restriction on devising homestead property absolute if the owner is survived by a spouse or minor child.
Facts:
- John Scholtz and Alice Scholtz married in 1928.
- In 1956, the couple separated and lived apart for the remainder of their lives.
- During the separation, John Scholtz purchased a residential property, which was titled solely in his name.
- John Scholtz resided on this property until he moved to a nursing home shortly before his death.
- At the time of his death, John Scholtz was survived by his wife, Alice, and one daughter.
Procedural Posture:
- The case originated in a Florida trial court for probate proceedings.
- The trial court determined that the residential property owned by John Scholtz was his homestead.
- The decedent's nephew, the petitioner, appealed the trial court's decision to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- The District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
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 1985 amendment to the Florida Constitution's homestead provision render the concept of spousal abandonment no longer viable as a basis to permit the devise of homestead property away from a surviving spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Grimes
No. The concept of abandonment is no longer viable because the 1985 constitutional amendment's plain language controls. The prior judicial concept of abandonment was 'inextricably tied' to the former 'head of a family' requirement in the constitution. By replacing that language with 'a natural person,' the amendment removed the entire basis for the abandonment doctrine. The court found the current language of Article X, section 4 to be clear and unambiguous: the homestead may not be devised if the owner is survived by a spouse or minor child, regardless of the family's living situation or any equitable considerations.
Concurring - Justice McDonald
No. While personally believing that the restriction on devise should not apply where a family exists 'in name only,' Justice McDonald concurred that the current state of the law compels the majority's conclusion. He noted a distinction between the policy reasons for protecting homestead from creditors (which should apply to any natural person) and restricting its devise (which should be to protect an actual family unit). Despite these policy concerns, he agreed that the plain language of the amended constitution dictates the outcome.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Ehrlich
Yes. The concept of abandonment should remain viable because the fundamental purpose of the homestead provision has always been to protect the family. The specific prohibition against devise when a 'spouse or minor child' survives demonstrates that this family-protection concern persists. The dissent argues that the 1985 amendment merely broadened the category of protected families, not eliminate the core purpose. Therefore, where a spouse has severed all family ties through abandonment, there is no family left to protect, and the restriction on devise should not apply.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Florida homestead law, moving from a family-status-based analysis to a clear, bright-line rule based on property ownership and survivor status. By rejecting the equitable doctrine of abandonment, the court embraced a textualist approach, holding that the plain meaning of the amended constitutional provision must be enforced. This simplifies the application of homestead law concerning devise, making the determination mechanical: if the owner is survived by a spouse, the property cannot be willed to another, regardless of the marital circumstances. The ruling solidifies protections for legally recognized surviving spouses, even in cases of long-term separation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: In Re Estate of Scholtz (1989)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"