Jameson v. Jameson
387 So.2d 351 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article X, Section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution does not require spousal joinder as a grantor when an owner of solely owned homestead property conveys that property to himself and his spouse as tenants by the entirety.
Facts:
- Louis Jameson owned homestead property in his sole name.
- In 1974, Louis Jameson executed a deed conveying this solely owned homestead property to his wife, Martha Jameson, and himself.
- The conveyance resulted in the property being held by Louis and Martha Jameson as tenants by the entirety.
- Martha Jameson did not formally join in this conveyance as a grantor on the deed.
- After Louis Jameson's death, his son, Edward Jameson, II, contested the validity of the conveyance.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Jameson, II, filed a declaratory action in circuit court (trial court) seeking to have the interspousal conveyance of homestead property declared null and void.
- The circuit court entered a summary judgment in favor of Edward Jameson, II, voiding the deed, based on its finding that a constitutional requirement of spousal joinder existed.
- Martha J. Jameson appealed the circuit court's summary judgment to the Third District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that Article X, Section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution clearly required spousal joinder for such a conveyance and declared Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional to the extent it allowed conveyance without joinder.
- Martha J. Jameson and George Ronald Jameson (Appellants) then brought a direct appeal 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 Article X, Section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution require a spouse to join in an interspousal conveyance of solely owned homestead property to the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety?
Opinions:
Majority - OVERTON, Justice
No, Article X, Section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution does not require a spouse to join in an interspousal conveyance of solely owned homestead property to the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety. The Court determined that the phrase "joined by the spouse if married" in the constitutional provision applies only to the general alienation of homestead property by mortgage, sale, or gift to a third party, not to the specific clause allowing an owner to "by deed transfer the title to an estate by the entirety with the spouse." The Court reasoned that requiring joinder from a spouse who is also the grantee in the transaction is neither rational nor necessary for the protection of homestead heirs. The Court clarified that its prior decision in Williams v. Foerster, relied upon by the district court, was misinterpreted, as Williams dealt with property already held as a tenancy by the entirety and the 1885 Constitution, and did not intend to impose a joinder requirement for interspousal transfers of solely owned homestead property to a tenancy by the entirety. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent behind the constitutional amendment, as indicated by the Legislative Reference Bureau and legal scholars, and is consistent with section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes, which the district court had declared unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarity regarding the interpretation of Florida's homestead exemption laws, particularly concerning interspousal property transfers. By holding that spousal joinder is not required when an owner conveys solely owned homestead to themselves and their spouse as tenants by the entirety, the court streamlines the process for married couples to establish joint ownership. This decision reinforces the legislative intent of § 689.11(1), Florida Statutes, ensuring greater flexibility in estate planning and property ownership within a marriage, while still upholding the fundamental constitutional protections against third-party alienation of homestead property.
