Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a decedent’s homestead condominium held in a revocable trust was not subject to devise or disposition through the trust because the decedent was survived by a spouse; under Article X, section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution and section 732.4015(2)(a), Florida Statutes, the property passed outside probate to the spouse for life and to the decedent’s sons as remaindermen. The court further ruled that the widow, as life tenant, is responsible for ordinary property expenses and could not recover from the remaindermen for a mortgage pay-off made before the decedent’s death under a mistaken belief of title. The trial court’s orders requiring the trust to reimburse the widow and to honor annual principal withdrawal demands were reversed.
Holdings
- Because the Key Biscayne condominium was the decedent's homestead at death and his spouse survived him, the property was not subject to disposition through the trust; it passed by operation of law to the surviving spouse as a life estate with vested remainder to the decedent's descendants per stirpes under article X, section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution and section 732.401(1), Florida Statutes (2001).
- Although a life tenant who pays off a mortgage outstanding against the estate is generally entitled to reimbursement from remaindermen, the widow was not entitled to reimbursement for the $129,895 mortgage payoff she made before her husband's death, even if under a mistaken belief of fee simple ownership.
- The trustees had no power or authority over the former marital home after it passed as homestead; the widow could not compel transfers of principal interests from the trust.
- Res judicata did not bar the widow's claims because the claims in her amended complaint were different from those litigated in the prior action.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Key Biscayne condominium is homestead property subject to the constitutional restrictions on devise.
- Whether the trial court properly ordered the trust to reimburse Doreen for mortgage pay-off and expenses.
- Whether Doreen is entitled to enforce the trust's provision for annual 5% principal withdrawals.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (17)
- Aronson v. Aronson, 930 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(prior_proceeding)
- AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dep’t of Transp., 41 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)(cited)
- Jones v. State ex rel. City of Winter Haven, 870 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(cited)
- Pipkin v. Wiggins, 526 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(cited)
- Edward T. Cutler v. Cynthia Cutler, In Re: The Estate of Edith Alice Cutler, Cutler v. Cutler, 994 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)(cited)
- Michael Engelke v. Estate of Paul Engelke, Engelke v. Estate of Engelke, 921 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(cited)
- Hill v. First Nat’l Bank of Marianna, 73 Fla. 1092, 75 So. 614 (1917)(cited)
- Smith v. Unkefer, 515 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)(cited)
- Heiman v. Capital Bank, 438 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(cited)
- Aetna Ins. Co. v. LaGasse, 223 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1969)(distinguished_authority)
Showing top 10 of 17.