Public Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Lopez
531 So. 2d 946 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, the homestead exemption from forced sale by creditors inures to a deceased owner's surviving spouse or heirs regardless of whether they were financially dependent on the owner.
Facts:
- This matter consolidated two separate cases with similar facts.
- In the first case, Nereida Lopez owned a home in which she resided with her three adult children at the time of her death.
- Lopez's adult children were not financially dependent upon her.
- At the time of her death, Lopez was indebted to Public Health Trust of Dade County.
- In the second case, Helen V. Taylor, a single woman, owned and resided in her home at the time of her death.
- Taylor died intestate and was survived by four adult, non-dependent children who lived elsewhere.
- Taylor was indebted to Gessler Clinic and Winter Haven Hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- In Lopez, the decedent's personal representatives petitioned the probate court to set aside the property as homestead; a creditor, Public Health Trust, opposed it.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding the adult heirs were not dependent.
- On appeal by the personal representatives, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court.
- In Hines/Taylor, the personal representatives' petition to set aside the homestead was opposed by creditors Gessler Clinic and Winter Haven Hospital.
- The probate court denied the petition.
- On appeal by the personal representatives, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of Florida granted review to resolve the direct conflict between the decisions of the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal.
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 of the Florida Constitution, as amended in 1985, exempt a decedent's homestead property from forced sale by creditors when the decedent is survived only by adult, non-dependent heirs?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barkett
Yes. Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution exempts a decedent's homestead property from forced sale by creditors for the benefit of the owner's heirs, regardless of their dependency status. The plain and unambiguous language of the constitutional provision states that the exemption 'shall inure to the surviving spouse or heirs of the owner' without any qualification or limitation requiring dependency. The 1985 amendment, which changed 'head of a family' to 'a natural person,' expanded the class of people who could claim the homestead protection and demonstrated an intent to broaden, not limit, its application. The court's role is to apply the plain meaning of the text, not to graft on requirements, such as dependency, that are not present. Historical precedent confirms that the exemption has always passed to heirs without regard to their age or dependency, so long as the property initially qualified as a homestead. The public policy of the homestead exemption is to protect the home for the family, and this protection has never been based on principles of equity or the financial status of the heirs.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Chief Justice McDonald
The answer depends on the facts. The majority's interpretation of the constitutional text is sound, but its application should be limited by a public purpose test. The exemption should only apply when the property continues to serve as a home for the heirs. Therefore, in the Lopez case, where the adult children lived in the decedent's home, the exemption should apply. However, in the Taylor case, where the adult children lived elsewhere and had their own homes, there is no public purpose served by protecting the property from creditors, as it is no longer a 'home' for the heirs. A critical factual distinction exists between an heir who resides in the homestead and one who does not.
Analysis:
This decision definitively interprets the 1985 amendment to Florida's homestead provision, establishing that the protection is not tied to the dependency of the heirs. It solidifies the homestead exemption as a powerful asset protection tool that passes to heirs free from most creditor claims, regardless of the heirs' own financial status or residence. By prioritizing the plain language of the constitution over policy arguments about preventing 'windfalls,' the Court significantly strengthened homestead rights and provided clear guidance for estate planning and creditor-debtor relations in Florida. The ruling ensures that the character of the property as a homestead is the key determinant, not the personal circumstances of the inheritors.
Unlock the full brief for Public Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Lopez