PAJARES v. Donahue
33 So. 3d 700, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3358, 2010 WL 934101 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a testator with no surviving spouse or minor children specifies in a will that their homestead is to be sold and the proceeds divided, the property loses its protected homestead status and becomes a general asset of the estate subject to the will's directives.
Facts:
- In 2004, Olga Kuhnreich, who had no surviving spouse or children, executed a will.
- Article Three of the will directed that "From the sale of: 202 N.W. 18 Street[,] Delray Beach, Florida," specific dollar amounts be bequeathed to five named individuals.
- The will stated that if Kuhnreich did not own the Delray Beach property at her death, the bequests would lapse, indicating the sale was the only source for these gifts.
- Article Four, titled "Homestead or Primary Residence," devised her interest in her primary residence to Gladys Pajares and Conchita Donahue by referencing "see above primary residence," which pointed back to Article Three.
- Article Four further stipulated that Pajares and Donahue were to receive the property "after all estate taxes, debts are satisfied."
- Olga Kuhnreich died in 2007, while still owning the Delray Beach property.
Procedural Posture:
- Conchita Donahue, as personal representative of Olga Kuhnreich's estate, filed a petition in the Florida circuit court (the court of first instance) for construction of the will.
- Donahue sought a declaration that the will required the sale of the Delray Beach residence to satisfy specific bequests.
- Gladys Pajares, a beneficiary, opposed this interpretation, arguing the residence was homestead property that passed directly to the devisees free from such claims.
- The circuit court ruled that the decedent's intent was for the property to be sold and the proceeds used to pay the specific bequests before any remainder was distributed.
- Gladys Pajares, as the appellant, appealed the circuit court's final order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida (the intermediate appellate 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 a testator's clear direction in a will to sell a homestead property and distribute the proceeds as specific cash bequests override Florida's constitutional homestead protection, thereby converting the property into a general asset of the estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Gross, C.J.
Yes. A testator's direction to sell a homestead and divide the proceeds overrides the property's protected status. The polestar of will interpretation is the testator's intent, which must be ascertained from the four corners of the will. Here, Olga Kuhnreich's intent was manifest: Article Three explicitly provides for bequests to be paid from the 'sale' of the Delray Beach property, and Article Four incorporates this by reference. Furthermore, by devising the property subject to 'debts,' the will expresses an intention contrary to preserving the creditor protections inherent in a homestead. Citing McKean v. Warburton, the court reasoned that when a testator without a spouse or minor children directs a homestead to be sold, it loses its protected status and becomes a general asset of the estate, available to satisfy devises in the order specified by law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the testator's intent in will construction, even when it conflicts with the strong public policy of Florida's homestead protection. It clarifies that the homestead protection is not absolute and can be effectively waived through specific testamentary direction. The ruling provides a clear precedent that a directive to sell a homestead and distribute the proceeds is a sufficient expression of intent to strip the property of its protected status, treating it instead as a general estate asset. This holding guides estate planners on how to draft wills to liquidate a homestead to satisfy bequests, while also cautioning that any such intent must be expressed with clarity to avoid litigation.
Unlock the full brief for PAJARES v. Donahue