Michael Olesky and Arthur W. Chairsell, Appellants, v. Daniel J. Nicholas, Fred J. Nicholas, Josephine B. Bowerman, Sadie S. Moreno, Amelia E. Nicholas, Adam A. Nicholas and Frieda T. Nicholas, Appellees

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court held that a homestead including a business house is not abandoned absent a clear-cut intention to abandon, determined by cautious consideration of all facts and circumstances; a period of vacancy due to economic necessity and without intent to abandon does not destroy the exemption. The court further held that the Florida constitutional homestead exemption protects against all forced sales except those specifically enumerated in the constitution, and therefore a judgment grounded on a malicious tort cannot overcome the exemption.

Holdings

1. There was no intended abandonment of the business house; whether a homestead including a business house has been abandoned must be determined by cautious consideration of facts and circumstances, requiring a clear-cut intention to abandon, which was not present despite a period of non-use.
2. The Florida constitutional exemption protects the homestead against every type of claim and judgment except those specifically mentioned in the constitutional provision, and therefore the homestead exemption precludes an execution sale even when the judgment is grounded on a malicious tort.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the deceased parents abandoned the exempt character of the business house portion of the property.
2. Whether the Florida constitutional homestead exemption protects the homestead from the lien of a judgment for malicious tort.

Disposition

affirmed