Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. La Croix
1962 Fla. LEXIS 3105, 137 So.2d 201 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The proceeds from the voluntary sale of homestead property are exempt from creditor claims if the vendor demonstrates a good faith intention, prior to and at the time of sale, to reinvest the proceeds in another homestead within a reasonable time, keeping the funds separate and apart for that sole purpose.
Facts:
- For approximately three and a half years prior to May 22, 1959, Henry J. LaCroix and Helen P. LaCroix (the LaCroixs) owned, as tenants by the entirety, and occupied certain real property in Orange County, Florida, as their homestead.
- During late 1958 and early 1959, Henry J. LaCroix's house construction business failed, leaving him heavily indebted and unable to afford his large, expensive home.
- In July 1959, Henry J. LaCroix listed the homestead property for sale with the intention of selling it and purchasing a smaller, less expensive home for his family.
- On July 15, 1959, the LaCroixs entered into a contract to sell their homestead property.
- On July 22, 1959, the LaCroixs sold their homestead property.
- Upon discovering a judgment against the LaCroixs, the purchaser's attorneys withheld $6,000 from the sale price, pending a determination that the property was indeed homestead at the time of sale.
- The LaCroixs continued to reside on the property until approximately August 15, 1959, after which they rented a house, intending to reside there until they could find a suitable home to purchase.
- Henry J. LaCroix stated his intention to purchase a new home with the $6,000 held by the purchaser's attorneys.
Procedural Posture:
- Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. (plaintiff below) obtained and recorded a judgment against Henry J. LaCroix and Helen P. LaCroix (defendants below) in the circuit court for Orange County, Florida.
- In September 1959, Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. caused a writ of garnishment to be issued by the Circuit Court of Orange County against the attorneys for the purchaser of the LaCroixs' property (garnishees), who were holding $6,000 of the sale proceeds.
- The garnishees filed an answer admitting they held $6,000 for the LaCroixs.
- The LaCroixs filed a motion in the circuit court to dissolve the writ of garnishment, asserting that the $6,000 represented proceeds from the sale of their homestead property and was therefore exempt from forced levy.
- A hearing was held before the circuit court, and the parties agreed to determine the issues based on an affidavit provided by Henry J. LaCroix.
- The circuit court entered an order dissolving the writ of garnishment, finding that the $6,000 held by the garnishees was exempt under the Florida Constitution and laws.
- Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. (appellant) appealed the circuit court's order to the District Court of Appeal, Second District.
- The District Court of Appeal, noting that the circuit court had construed a controlling constitutional provision, ordered the appeal transferred to the Supreme Court of Florida (this court) because exclusive jurisdiction rested with the Supreme Court.
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 constitutional exemption of homestead property from forced sale extend to the proceeds of a voluntary sale of that homestead, provided the owner intends in good faith to reinvest those proceeds in a new homestead?
Opinions:
Majority - Hobson
Yes, the proceeds of a voluntary sale of homestead property are exempt from creditors' claims, just as the homestead itself is, under specific conditions. The Court is committed to a liberal interpretation of Florida's homestead exemption to ensure families have shelter and are not reduced to destitution. While the Constitution does not explicitly extend the exemption to sale proceeds, its purpose to protect the debtor and his family dictates that the funds intended to be reinvested in a new homestead should retain an exempt status, akin to how damages for homestead invasion or fire insurance proceeds for a destroyed homestead are treated. This principle aligns with the doctrine of equitable conversion, where funds 'in transit' assume the character of the exempt real property. This interpretation allows families to move due to economic or other compelling reasons without losing the protection of their homestead exemption. The prior case of Drucker v. Rosenstein, which held that intent alone is insufficient to establish a homestead, is distinguishable because here, an established homestead already existed before the sale. However, the Court determined that the record, based solely on Henry LaCroix's affidavit, was insufficient to make a final decision, lacking concrete evidence on the expected timeframe for purchasing a new home, the exact amount needed for reinvestment, and the disposition of any surplus funds from the sale. Therefore, the judgment dissolving the writ of garnishment was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Dissenting - Drew
No, the proceeds from a voluntary sale of homestead property should not be exempt beyond the $1,000 personal property exemption specified in the Constitution. The majority's decision constitutes judicial legislation, as it creates new exemptions and burdens for creditors that are not explicitly provided for in Article X, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution. The Constitution clearly defines a homestead as 'land' and 'one thousand dollars worth of personal property.' Once homestead property is voluntarily sold, the proceeds become personal property. To grant full exemption based on mere 'intention' to reinvest is contrary to established precedent, such as Drucker v. Rosenstein, which held that intent alone cannot create homestead status. This ruling creates practical difficulties, making it impossible for creditors to know what amount is subject to attachment, or for how long. The cases cited by the majority, such as those involving involuntary conversions (e.g., fire insurance proceeds), are distinguishable because they did not involve a voluntary alienation of the homestead. Allowing full exemption of sale proceeds based on intent places the cash of a former homestead owner in a superior position to a neighbor who saved an equivalent amount of cash but never owned a homestead. The remedy for any perceived deficiency in the homestead law should come from the Legislature, not from judicial reinterpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, the proceeds, except for the $1,000 personal property exemption, should be subject to the claims of creditors.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the scope of Florida's homestead exemption, moving beyond a strict interpretation of the constitutional text to embrace a more flexible, policy-driven approach. By extending the exemption to proceeds from voluntary sales, the Court aimed to prevent families from being tied to a particular property due to financial hardship and facilitate mobility without sacrificing their constitutional protection. The ruling establishes a crucial legal test for determining the exempt status of such funds, requiring a showing of good faith intention and diligent reinvestment, which will undoubtedly be central to future litigation involving homestead sales. It underscores Florida's strong commitment to protecting debtors and their families, even when the property itself has been converted to cash, so long as the funds are genuinely earmarked for re-establishing a home.
