Collins v. Collins
| Decision Date | 10 April 1942 |
| Citation | 150 Fla. 374,7 So.2d 443 |
| Parties | COLLINS v. COLLINS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; George E. Holt judge.
Hugh C. Nicholas, of Miami, for appellant.
H. V Whitehurst, of Miami, for appellees.
This is a controversy between appellant and appellees over the possession of Lot 12, Block 3, Beverly Heights in Dade County S. B. Collins filed his petition in the county judge's court praying that appellant be required to release possession of said lot to him. When the petition was heard the county judge found that the question of homestead property was involved in the controversy and declined to proceed further with the cause.
Several methods for settling the dispute were discussed but it was eventually agreed that a friendly suit would be brought for the purpose of construing the will of W. R. Collins and thus adjudicate the homestead question. This suit was brought and on final hearing the Chancellor found that appellant and her husband W. R. Collins, did not occupy and claim a homestead in Lot 12, Block 3, of Beverly Heights at the time of his death. The final decree also held that the 'plaintiff and all persons claiming by, through, and under her are hereby barred and decreed from ever claiming or attempting to claim any interest, right, or title in said property described in the preceding sentence hereof'. This appeal is from the final decree.
The questions raised turn on the fact of whether or not appellant and her deceased husband, W. R. Collins, occupied or claimed Lot 12 Block 3, Beverly Heights in Dade County as their homestead at the death of the latter.
Appellees are the children of W. R. Collins by a former marriage. Appellant and W. R. Collins were married in the early 1930's. W. R. Collins owned several parcels of land besides the lot in question. Late in 1939, appellant brought suit against W. R. Collins for separate maintenance. The latter countered with a cross-bill for divorce. A decree resulted in favor of appellant for separate maintenance and temporary attorneys' fees.
Shortly afterward the parties became reconciled and resumed the marital status and dismissed their suits. W. R. Collins died March 15, 1941. The evidence is uncontradicted that in 1939, 1940, and 1941, W. R. Collins applied for and was granted homestead exemption on the lot in question. Appellant also testified that as a condition to dismissing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reinish v. Clark, 1D98-3973.
...143 Fla. 603, 197 So. 328, 330 (1940); Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946 (Fla.1988); Collins v. Collins, 150 Fla. 374, 7 So.2d 443, 444 (1942); Law v. Law, 738 So.2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Myers v. Lehrer, 671 So.2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (recognizing purpose of ......
-
In re John Richards Homes Bldg. Co., L.L.C.
...paramount importance." Bigelow v. Dunphe, 143 Fla. 603, 197 So. 328, 330 (1940) (quoting 26 Am.Jur. 10). See also Collins v. Collins, 150 Fla. 374, 7 So.2d 443, 444 (1942) ("The purpose of the homestead is to shelter the family and provide it a refuge from the stresses and strains of 11 U.S......
-
Van Meter's Estate, In re
...relationship of husband and wife is relied upon to constitute the 'family' is well established in Florida case law. Collins v. Collins, 1942, 150 Fla. 374, 7 So.2d 443; Hill v. First Nat. Bank, 1920, 79 Fla. 391, 84 So. 190, 20 A.L.R. 270; In re: Noble's Estate, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 873; Milt......
-
Butterworth v. Caggiano
...it a refuge from misfortune, without any requirement that the misfortune arise from a financial debt. See, e.g., Collins v. Collins, 150 Fla. 374, 377, 7 So.2d 443, 444 (1942) ("The purpose of the homestead is to shelter the family and provide it a refuge from the stresses and strains of Mo......