Kelly v. Spain
| Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D14–510.,4D14–510. |
| Parties | Laurel KELLY, as Martin County Property Appraiser, and Ruth Pietruszewski, as Martin County Tax Collector, Appellants, v. Mary Jane SPAIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
160 So.3d 78
Laurel KELLY, as Martin County Property Appraiser, and Ruth Pietruszewski, as Martin County Tax Collector, Appellants
v.
Mary Jane SPAIN, Appellee.
No. 4D14–510.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 25, 2015.
Rehearing Denied April 15, 2015.
Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., and J. Christopher Woolsey of Law Offices of Wood & Stuart, P.A., Bunnell, for appellants.
Donald H. Whittemore of Phelps Dunbar LLP, Tampa, for appellee.
Opinion
GROSS, J.
Does a homestead exemption originally obtained by a husband alone inure to his wife's benefit after his death, where (1) the property was held as a tenancy by the entireties, (2) the wife never filed for her own homestead exemption, and (3) the wife continuously maintained her permanent residence on the property before and after her husband's death? Under Article VII of the Florida Constitution and statutes implementing the Constitution's homestead provisions, we answer the question in the affirmative.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. In 1985, Frank Spain applied for and received a homestead exemption for the house he owned in his name on South Beach Road in Hobe Sound. After receiving the exemption, he married appellee Mary Jane Spain in April 1985. From that time, the couple resided at the house as their primary residence for the remainder of their marriage. On February 24, 2000, Frank conveyed the house via warranty deed to himself and Mary Jane, as tenants by the entireties.
After this conveyance, Mary Jane did not apply for her own homestead exemption. The couple received property tax bills in both their names, consistent with the entireties ownership, and continued to receive the homestead exemption. Frank died on April 25, 2006. Mary Jane continued to occupy the house as her primary residence. She did not apply for a homestead exemption in her name after Frank's death, nor did she notify the Property Appraiser of his demise.
From 2007 through 2011, the Martin County Property Appraiser continued to apply the homestead exemption's tax benefits and the “Save Our Homes” assessment cap to the home and sent notices of proposed taxes to “Frank K. Spain and Mary Jane Spain”; likewise, the Tax Collector sent tax notices addressed to “Frank K. Spain and Mary Jane Spain.”
In May 2012, the Property Appraiser learned of Frank's death from the filing of an Order of Summary Administration. This probate filing was the Property Appraiser's first notice that Frank had died in 2006.
Two months later, the Property Appraiser sent Mary Jane a letter informing her that a $283,070.45 tax lien had been placed on her home. The amount of the lien was based on the total taxes erroneously exempted from 2007 through 2011, including a 50% penalty and 15% interest per year. To justify the notice of tax lien, a compliance officer in the Property Appraiser's office explained:
We recently received notice, as a result of a probate recording ... that Frank K. Spain died on 4/25/2006. [The h]omestead exception on this account was based on Frank K. Spain's homestead application he filed in 1985 and was contingent upon his continued residency on this property in Florida. Mr. Spain was the only owner who filed an application for the homestead exemption.
Since we were unaware that Mr. Spain died in 2006 we have continued to automatically renew his homestead exemption each year. [The h]omestead exemption should have ended as of 12/31/06 as a result of his death in April 2006.
Procedural Posture
Mary Jane satisfied the tax lien under protest and filed suit against Martin County's
Property Appraiser and Tax Collector (“the appellants”), seeking two forms of declaratory relief: first, a “finding that, following her husband's death in 2006, [Mary Jane] was entitled to the benefit of the homestead exemption and the limitation of reassessments of her [home] as provided by law”; and, second, “a refund from the Tax Collector of the amount of the 2012 property taxes paid in excess of the taxes due had the homestead exemption not been revoked by the Property Appraiser.” Relying upon section 193.155(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), which comprises part of the “Save Our Homes” amendment's implementing statute, Mary Jane argued her husband's “death did not constitute a change of ownership of the [home] that triggered the requirement to reassess the [home] at just value.” Rather, Mary Jane interpreted section 193.155(3)(a)in pari materia with section 196.011, Florida Statutes (2011)—the homestead exemption's implementing statute—as mandating that “there is no change of ownership where subsequent to the change, the same person is entitled to the homestead exemption and the transfer is made between spouses or to a surviving spouse.”
In their answer, the appellants contended that Mary Jane waived the homestead exemption benefits from 2007 through 2011 by failing to file a homestead application in her name. The appellants viewed the death of Frank, “the co-owner of the property who was the only applicant for [the H]omestead Exemption,” as “a change in ‘the status or condition of the owner’ ” contemplated by section 196.011(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), requiring Mary Jane to “notify the Martin County Property Appraiser of that fact.” Because she failed to do so, the appellants claimed the lien was proper.
The circuit court granted summary final judgment in favor of Mary Jane and ordered the Tax Collector to refund $283,070.45 to her, with interest.
Standard of Review
“Statutory and constitutional construction are questions of law subject to a de novo review.” W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 79 So.3d 1, 8 (Fla.2012). “When reviewing constitutional provisions, this Court follows principles parallel to those of statutory interpretation.” Ford v. Browning, 992 So.2d 132, 136 (Fla.2008) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, “[i]f the language in the constitution is clear, there is no need to resort to other tools of construction.” Garcia v. Andonie, 101 So.3d 339, 343 (Fla.2012) (citing Lawnwood Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Seeger, 990 So.2d 503, 510 (Fla.2008) ). If, on the other hand, “the explicit language is ambiguous or does not address the exact issue before the court, the court must endeavor to construe the constitutional provision in a manner consistent with the intent of the framers and the voters.” Ford, 992 So.2d at 136 (citing Crist v. Fla. Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Inc., 978 So.2d 134, 140 (Fla.2008) ).
Homestead and the “Save Our Homes” Assessment Cap
“The law of homestead began as an ‘American innovation’ that was incorporated into Florida's jurisprudence where it evolved, relative to the homestead laws of other jurisdictions, into a rather unique body of rules and principles.” Traeger v. Credit First Nat'l Ass'n, 864 So.2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citation omitted). From this transformation, homestead has been given meaning in three different contexts—taxation, exemption from forced sale, and devise and descent—lending itself to its title as our state's
“legal chameleon.”1 See Snyder v. Davis, 699 So.2d 999, 1001–02 (Fla.1997) ; Phillips v. Hirshon, 958 So.2d 425, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
No matter the form, the goal of homestead has remained stable: to protect the family. See Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So.2d 850, 856 (Fla.2007). Homestead “ ‘promote[s] the stability and welfare of the state by securing to the householder a home, so that the homeowner and his or her heirs may live beyond the reach of financial misfortune.’ ” McKean v. Warburton, 919 So.2d 341, 344 (Fla.2005) (quoting Pub. Health & Trust v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla.1988) ). Those aspects of homestead directed at property taxation provide financial relief for owners of property who qualify for homestead status.
Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Florida Constitution allows “[e]very person who has the legal or equitable title to real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Henriquez
...directed at property taxation provide financial relief for owners of property who qualify for homestead status." Kelly v. Spain, 160 So. 3d 78, 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).5 Although instructive, we are not bound by the definition of "permanent residence" provided by the legislature. This is bec......