Snyder v. Davis
1997 WL 576037, 699 So.2d 999 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a decedent is not survived by a spouse or minor children, Florida's homestead exemption from forced sale by creditors applies to homestead property devised by will to any lineal descendant within the class of persons categorized in Florida's intestacy statute, even if that specific descendant would not be the sole actual heir under strict intestate succession.
Facts:
- Betty Snyder died testate on February 15, 1995.
- Betty Snyder was not survived by a spouse or minor children.
- Betty Snyder was survived by her adult son, Milo Snyder, and his adult daughter, Kelli Snyder.
- In her will, Betty Snyder made specific bequests and devised all the rest, residue, and remainder of her property, including her homestead, to her granddaughter, Kelli Snyder.
- Betty Snyder's home was legally recognized as homestead property.
- Kent W. Davis, the personal representative of Betty Snyder's estate, sought to sell the homestead property to satisfy creditors' claims, fund specific bequests, and cover administration costs.
- Kelli Snyder, the residuary beneficiary, asserted that the homestead property should pass to her free of claims because she was protected by the homestead provision of the Florida Constitution.
Procedural Posture:
- Kent W. Davis, as personal representative of Betty Snyder's estate, sought to sell the homestead property to satisfy claims.
- The trial judge found that the homestead provision protected the homestead from creditors' claims.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the homestead exemption only followed if the property was devised to the person who would have actually taken it had the testator died intestate (Betty Snyder's son, Milo Snyder).
- The Second District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance 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, of the Florida Constitution exempt homestead property from forced sale by creditors when it is devised by a decedent (not survived by a spouse or minor child) to a lineal descendant (granddaughter) who would not be an actual intestate heir because a closer lineal descendant (son) is still living?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton
Yes, Article X, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution exempts homestead property from forced sale by creditors when it is devised by a decedent (not survived by a spouse or minor child) to a lineal descendant, even if that descendant would not be the sole actual heir under intestate succession because a closer lineal descendant is still living. The Court found that the homestead provision must be liberally construed to protect and preserve the interest of the family in the family home. The term 'heirs' in Article X, Section 4(b) is not limited to only the person or persons who would actually take the homestead by law in intestacy on the death of the decedent. Instead, it encompasses any individual within the class of persons categorized in Florida's intestacy statute (§ 732.103). The Court reasoned that a narrow interpretation would force testators to guess their actual intestate heirs to maintain constitutional protections against creditors, thereby discouraging will-making and promoting intestacy, which would be an unreasonable and illogical construction given the policy of broadly interpreting homestead protections. The majority approved the reasoning of Bartelt v. Bartelt and Walker v. Mickler, which supported the concept that the exemption could pass to a devisee who is a member of the class of 'heirs' rather than strictly the closest intestate heir.
Dissenting - Grimes
No, Article X, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution does not exempt homestead property from forced sale by creditors when it is devised to a lineal descendant who would not be an actual intestate heir because a closer lineal descendant is still living. Justice Grimes argued that the word 'heirs' as used in the Florida Constitution has been consistently understood for decades to mean those persons who inherit from the decedent under the law when the decedent dies intestate. He cited section 731.201(18), Florida Statutes (1993), which defines 'heirs' as 'those persons... who are entitled under the statutes of intestate succession to the property of a decedent.' Under Florida's per stirpes inheritance, Milo Snyder (the son) would have been the sole heir if Betty Snyder had died intestate, meaning Kelli Snyder (the granddaughter) would have inherited nothing. Therefore, Kelli Snyder does not qualify as an intestate 'heir,' and the homestead exemption should not inure to her. Justice Grimes contended that the majority's new 'class of heirs' definition deviates from established statutory and case law interpretation.
Dissenting - Harding
No, the Florida Constitution does not exempt homestead property from forced sale by creditors when it is devised to a lineal descendant who would not be an actual intestate heir because a closer lineal descendant is still living. Justice Harding argued that the majority opinion violated the rules of constitutional and statutory construction, the principles of stare decisis, and the doctrine of separation of powers. He emphasized that section 731.201(18), Florida Statutes (1995), explicitly defines 'heirs' as those 'entitled under the statutes of intestate succession,' a definition previously approved by the Court in relation to homestead. He asserted that while policy reasons might suggest a broader definition, the statute is clear and unambiguous, and it is the role of the legislature to change it, not the judiciary. Justice Harding also found the majority's reliance on Bartelt v. Bartelt to be misplaced, noting that in Bartelt, the devisee son would have inherited the property under intestate succession, unlike Kelli Snyder in the instant case. He concluded that the district court's interpretation, aligning with the statutory definition and prior case law, was the correct result.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of 'heirs' in Florida's homestead exemption, moving away from a strict intestate succession definition to a 'class of heirs' approach for testamentary devises. This provides greater flexibility for testators to choose who inherits their homestead property while maintaining creditor protection, aligning with the policy of liberally construing homestead laws to preserve family homes. The decision removes the uncertainty of predicting intestate heirs at the moment of death, simplifying estate planning for individuals without surviving spouses or minor children. However, it also highlights an ongoing tension between judicial interpretation and strict adherence to legislative definitions in Florida homestead law, as noted by the dissenting justices.
