Barlow v. Barlow
| Citation | 23 So.2d 723,156 Fla. 458 |
| Parties | BARLOW et al. v. BARLOW. |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1945 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1945.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hardee County; D. O. Rogers judge.
Mabry, Reaves, Carlton, Anderson & Fields, of Tampa and W. W. Whitehurst, of Wauchula, for appellants.
Shackleford Farrior & Shannon, T. M. Shackleford, Jr., and R. W Shackleford, all of Tampa, for appellee.
Ingram P. Barlow was married to appellee, Lucie Hoage Barlow, in October 1935 and died in January 1944. Lucie Hoage Barlow had left the home at the time of Barlow's death but returned soon thereafter. This suit was brought by appellants, children of a former wife of Ingram P. Barlow. The bill of complaint prays that Lucie Hoage Barlow be enjoined from asserting any claim to the homestead of Ingram P. Barlow or from having any temporary or permanent allowance from his estate. Answer was filed denying the material allegations of the bill of complaint. On final hearing the Chancellor found the equities to be with the defendant and that she was seized and possessed of the homestead of Ingram P. Barlow. He accordingly dismissed the bill of complaint and this appeal was prosecuted.
Stripped of excess verbal apparel the ultimate question for determination is whether or not in law, Lucie Hoage Barlow may be said to have abandoned her husband and the home when she left them prior to her husband's death.
In the course of the trial of this issue W. W. Whitehurst, and attorney of Wauchula, Florida, testified in reference to a conversation he had with Mrs. Barlow before she left the home. His testimony was not objected to at the time but was later stricken on the ground that it was privileged. For all the record discloses the statements about which Mr. Whitehurst testified were made to him voluntarily by Mrs. Barlow about a matter that had no relation to the present litigation. Under the facts presented they were material to but not decisive of the main question, were not privileged and should not have been stricken.
Under the law of this State, the homestead is not something to toy with and use as a 'city of refuge' from the law's exactions. It was provided for the benefit of the family as a place of actual residence, as a haven where integrity patriotism and respect for civic and moral virtues is generated. It is the legal atom that neither scientist nor legalist have discovered the means to crack. It can be waived by abandonment or by alienation in the manner provided by law. Nelson v. Hainlin, 89 Fla. 356, 104 So. 589. We think it is abandoned when the owner removes from the home with no intention of returning, takes up...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Meter's Estate, In re
...24; Beck v. Wylie, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 190; 16 Fla.Jur., Homestead, section 27, page 290.' (Emphasis supplied). In Barlow v. Barlow, 1945, 156 Fla. 458, 23 So.2d 723, the wife, Lucie Hoage Barlow, left the family home about two weeks before her husband's death, moving out 'for keeps' and car......
-
In re Franzese
...can waive the right to claim homestead protection by abandonment or alienation in any manner provided by law. Barlow v. Barlow, 156 Fla. 458, 23 So.2d 723, 724 (1945). As such, not every natural person "receive[s] the benefits of a homestead exemption under Section 4, Article X, of the Flor......
-
Nikiporez's Estate, Matter of
...in Deceased Spouse's Estate, 13 A.L.R.3d 446 (1967). 9 See In re Estate of Van Meter, 214 So.2d 639 (Fla.App.1968); Barlow v. Barlow, 156 Fla. 458, 23 So.2d 723 (1945); Swift v. Reasonover, 168 Tenn. 305, 77 S.W.2d 809 (1935); In re Estate of Fenyo, 105 Pa.Super. 560, 161 A. 606 (1932); Goo......
-
In re Franzese
...can waive the right to claim homestead protection by abandonment or alienation in any manner provided by law. Barlow v. Barlow, 156 Fla. 458, 23 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. 1945). As such, not every natural person "receive[s] the benefits of a homestead exemption under Section 4, Article X, of the......