McKean v. Warburton
919 So. 2d 341, 2005 WL 2155180 (2006)
Rule of Law:
Where a decedent is not survived by a spouse or minor children, homestead property not specifically devised passes to the residuary devisees, not the general devisees, unless there is a specific testamentary disposition ordering the property to be sold and the proceeds made a part of the general estate.
Facts:
- Henry Pratt McKean II died testate, not survived by a spouse or minor child.
- McKean owned a condominium which was his homestead at the time of his death.
- McKean's will made specific cash bequests, including $150,000 to his nephew, Peter Warburton.
- McKean's will included a residuary clause devising all remaining property to his half-brothers, Thomas McKean, John W. McKean, Robert McKean, and David McKean, in equal shares.
- McKean also had nominal assets valued at approximately $10,000, and his estate's liabilities amounted to $14,000, plus personal representative's and attorney's fees.
- The homestead condominium was subsequently sold, netting $141,000.
- Absent the homestead proceeds, the estate's nominal assets are insufficient to satisfy its liabilities and the specific cash bequests.
- Peter Warburton argued that the homestead proceeds should be used to fund his cash gift, free from creditor's claims, as pre-residuary property, while McKean's half brothers argued the homestead property passes through the residuary clause to them.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry Pratt McKean II died testate.
- A dispute arose regarding the distribution of the proceeds from McKean's homestead property, with Peter Warburton seeking the proceeds to satisfy a general cash bequest and McKean's half brothers asserting a claim via the residuary clause.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Peter Warburton, concluding that the homestead proceeds should be considered part of the general assets available to satisfy specific and general devises.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida, concerning the order of distribution for non-specifically devised homestead property when a decedent is not survived by a spouse or minor children.
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 homestead property, not specifically devised by a decedent who is not survived by a spouse or minor children, pass to general devisees before residuary devisees under section 733.805, Florida Statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Quince
No, homestead property not specifically devised by a decedent who is not survived by a spouse or minor children does not pass to general devisees before residuary devisees under section 733.805, Florida Statutes; instead, it passes to the residuary devisees. The Florida Constitution broadly protects homestead property from forced sale by creditors, reflecting a public policy to secure a home for the householder and their heirs. While a decedent without a spouse or minor children may devise their homestead, it generally passes outside the probate estate and is not considered an asset subject to general estate distribution and abatement rules like section 733.805. The Court referenced Snyder v. Davis, which involved similar facts where homestead property passing through a residuary clause to an heir was protected from forced sale to satisfy cash gifts and creditor claims. It affirmed that a residuary clause is a sufficiently precise indicator of testamentary intent to pass protected homestead property. Homestead property only loses its protected status and becomes subject to general estate distribution if the will contains a specific testamentary disposition ordering the property to be sold and the proceeds made a part of the general estate. McKean's will did not include such a specific directive to sell the homestead and add the proceeds to the general estate. Therefore, the proceeds from the sale of McKean's homestead condominium pass to his residuary devisees (his half-brothers) and are protected from satisfying Peter Warburton's general cash bequest.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong constitutional protection afforded to homestead property in Florida, even when a decedent is not survived by a spouse or minor children. It clarifies that homestead property, absent an explicit testamentary directive for its sale and inclusion of proceeds into the general estate, passes outside the traditional probate estate and abatement scheme. The ruling highlights the significance of a testator's specific intent regarding homestead disposition, prioritizing residuary beneficiaries who are statutory heirs over general monetary devisees unless the will explicitly converts the homestead into a general estate asset, thereby shielding the homestead from creditor claims and the statutory order of abatement for other estate assets.
