Anderson v. Garber
| Decision Date | 01 March 1966 |
| Parties | Lucile A. ANDERSON, a free dealer, Appellant, v. Harry D. GARBER and Helen E. Garber, his wife, Appellees. No 65-387. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cheren & Golden, Miami, for appellant.
Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames & Greene and Robert J. Paterno, Paul H. Laufer, Ray M. Friedman, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Lucile A. Anderson, from a final decree in favor of the plaintiffs in a mortgage foreclosure suit.
The defendant contended that the mortgage was void because it covered the homestead and the mortgagor was at the time the head of a family and could not execute such a mortgage in which her husband did not join.
The sole question presented on appeal is whether or not the mortgagor, Mrs. Anderson, was the head of a family at the time she executed the mortgage.
It is not disputed that Mrs. Anderson was a free dealer when she executed the mortgage, to secure a loan, on property of which she is the sole owner. In July, 1960, she married James Anderson after which she, her husband and her three children by a previous marriage resided on the property. The mortgage was executed in November, 1962. Although the marriage was not terminated, Mrs. Anderson claims that at some point between July, 1960, and November, 1962, her husband abandoned his position as head of the family. Then, since she had an obligation and did, in fact, support her children she became the head of the family.
Mrs. Anderson testified that after three weeks of marriage, her husband began to stay away nights. This became a habit, and he stayed away for months at a time. Mrs. Anderson owned a plant nursery and during the periods her husband was home he worked there. She stated that her husband was able-bodied and very talented in the nursery business. Mr. Anderson worked in another nursery for a period of time in 1960 or 1961 for a salary of between $75 and $85 per week. However, Mrs. Anderson asserts that her husband has neither supported her nor her children since their marriage.
For the purposes of Article X, Section 1, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., there can only be one head of a family. While it is true that the head of a family may be a married woman, there is a presumption that the husband is the head. It is not necessary that the parties live together so long as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sephus v. Gozelski
...So. 614 (1917). Between husband and wife, a presumption in law developed that a husband is the head of the family. See Anderson v. Garber, 183 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Although there was no evidence adduced at trial as to which of the Hunters is "in charge," there clearly exists a lega......
-
Berger v. Lewison
...Federal Farm Mortgage Corp., 138 Fla. 65, 188 So. 804 (1939); Abernathy v. Gruppo, 119 So.2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Anderson v. Garber, 183 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 820 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 189 So.2d 631 Third, it accordingly follows that no error was comm......
-
Matter of Hersch, Bankruptcy No. 82-789.
...facts involved in each case who is, in fact, the head of the household. Solomon v. Davis, 100 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA); Anderson v. Garber, 183 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 188 So.2d 820 (Fla.), app. dismd. 189 So.2d 631 It is also clear that the parties cannot stipulate as to who i......
-
Nationwide Financial Corp. of Colorado v. Thompson, YY-8
...that under the Florida constitution there can be only one head of a family. Solomon v. Davis, 100 So.2d 177 (Fla.1958); Anderson v. Garber, 183 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 820 (Fla.1966). Since the homestead exemption for the "head of a family" has been a part of the co......