Don TULLIS, Petitioner, v. Shirley D. TULLIS, Respondent.

Summary

In Tullis v. Tullis, 360 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1978), the Florida Supreme Court held that the state constitutional homestead exemption (Article X, Section 4) does not bar a partition action and forced sale of homestead property by a co-owner, when partition is necessary to protect the beneficial enjoyment of the common owners’ interests. The court reasoned that the exemption protects the family home from forced sale for the owner’s debts, not from a cotenant’s right to partition, and reaffirmed the rule in Donly v. Metropolitan Realty & Investment Co., 71 Fla. 644, 72 So. 178 (1916). This decision resolved a conflict with Hoskin v. Hoskin, 329 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and remains controlling authority on the intersection of homestead rights and partition by tenants in common.

Holdings

1. The constitutional provisions allow the partition and forced sale of homestead property upon suit by one of the owners of that property, if such partition and forced sale is necessary to protect the beneficial enjoyment of the owners in common to the extent of their interests in the property.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution (1968) prohibits partition and forced sale of homestead property when one co-owner sues for partition.

Disposition

approved