Friscia v. Friscia

Friscia v. Friscia, 161 So.3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), 2014 WL 4212689

Again we have a probate case involving the intersection between probate and family law, this time with the added twist of Florida homestead law.  This case involved a determination of whether a decedent's interest in a home was homestead based upon the provisions of the decedent's marital settlement agreement with his first wife.  

The decedent's marital settlement agreement gave his first wife exclusive use and possession of their marital home until their youngest child graduated from high school.  At that time, the decedent and his first wife were required to sell the marital home and split the proceeds.  The decedent died before his youngest son graduated from high school, and thus the probate court held that the decedent owned the home as a tenant in common with his first wife and his interest retained its homestead status, relying on the Third Districts decision in Beltran v. Kalb, 63 So.3d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)

The personal representative of the decedent's estate first argued that the probate court's reliance on Beltran was incorrect, because Beltran did not involve issues of waiver in the marital settlement agreement.  He argued that the decedent waived homestead in the marital settlement agreement, and based his position on two separate provisions of the agreement: the mutual release provisions and the provisions requiring the eventual sale of the homestead.

The Court rejected the personal representative's argument that this case was distinguishable from Beltran.  In Beltran, the husband and wife owned the marital home as tenants in common at the time of the wife's death, making it necessary to determine the homestead status of each owner.  The Court held that the award of exclusive use and possession of the homestead to the wife did not extinguish the husband's right to homestead protection, since his child, who he still supported financially, still lived on the property.  Thus, because each of the tenants in common retained their homestead interest in the marital home, the homestead exemption precluded the forced sale of the property to satisfy a creditor.  Like in Beltran, here, the husband and wife owned the marital home as tenants in common at the time of the decedent's death.  And also similarly, the award of exclusive use and possession to the wife did not extinguish the decedent's right to homestead protection, since his child, who he still supported financially, also still lived on the property.  Thus, the probate court's reliance on Beltran was proper.

The Court also rejected the personal representative's argument that the provisions of the marital settlement agreement waived homestead protection.  Even though the mutual release provisions in the agreement were broad, and contained language waiving "all rights," the broad waiver only waived homestead rights in the property of the other.  Since the rights at issue here were the decedent's own homestead rights in the property, and not the property of the former wife, the mutual release provisions did not constitute a waiver of the decedent's homestead protection.  The Court similarly found that the decedent's agreement to sell the marital home in the agreement was not inconsistent with the homestead right protecting his interest from forced sale.   As a result, the Court held that neither provision in the marital settlement agreement constituted a waiver of the decedent's homestead protections.

Comments

  1. UnknownJanuary 17, 2015 at 2:21 PM

    I will love to share my testimony to all the people in the world, because someone out there might have same problem on how i got the love of my life back, to be with me he left me to another woman for no reason and i try to make things work for both of us yet things where getting worse and i love him so much and there is nothing i could do to get him back until i met a testimony share by vivian from UK on the internet talking about a powerful spell caster who brought her lover back within 12hours and i decide to give him a try and to my greatest surprise he also did it for me just as he did for violet. Dr Amba you are a great spell caster who help me to solve my problem.After three day my lover called and told me he is coming back to sought out things with me, I was surprise when I saw him and he started crying for forgiveness and that he never knew what came over him that he will never leave me again. Right now I am the happiest woman on earth for what this great spell caster did for me and i have introduce many of my friends that have a similar problems,and their problem were solve easily with the great help of Dr.Amba, you can contact him via email; ambatemple@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and stamped the will.  The testator
Read more

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, &quo
Read more