Lanier v. Lanier

Decision Date22 March 1928
Citation95 Fla. 522,116 So. 867
PartiesLANIER et al. v. LANIER.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1928.

Suit by Clyde Lanier and others against Lula May Lanier. Decree for respondent, and complainants appeal.


Syllabus by the Court


Temporary absence from homestead will not deprive it of homestead character unless there is design of permanent abandonment permanent abandonment of homestead deprives property of homestead character. A temporary absence from the homestead of the head of a family in search of health, pleasure, or for business reasons will not deprive the homestead of its character and status as such unless there was a design of permanent abandonment, but a permanent abandonment of the homestead as a bona fide homestead and place of permanent abode deprives the property of its homestead character.

Whether there has been abandonment of homestead should be determined by considering all pertinent facts and circumstances of each case. Whether there has been an abandonment of a homestead so as to deprive it of its status as such under the Constitution should be determined by a consideration of all the pertinent facts and circumstances of each case.

Status of property as homestead depends on intention to reside thereon permanently, coupled with fact of residence. The status of property as a homestead depends upon an actual intention to reside thereon as a permanent place of residence, coupled with the fact of residence.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.


Kelly Sutton & Shaw, of Tampa, for appellants.

Herbert S. Phillips, of Tampa, and Arthur L. Auvil, of Dade City, for appellee.



This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said decree. It is therefore considered, ordered, and decreed by the court that the said decree of the circuit court be and the same is hereby, affirmed.

On Petition for Rehearing.


This is a suit in equity, brought by the children of a deceased father against their stepmother to cancel and set aside a deed which conveyed directly from the father to his wife, the stepmother of complainants, certain lands which the complainants allege were, when so conveyed, a part of the grantor father's homestead.

By petition for rehearing it is suggested by the complainants, who are appellants here, that, in affirming the decree of the chancellor dismissing the bill of complaint, this court overlooked and inadvertently overruled Norton v. Baya, 88 Fla. 1, 102 So. 361, and contrary to that decision and also the decision in Jackson v. Jackson, 90 Fla. 563, 107 So. 255, in effect held to be good and valid a conveyance of a part of the homestead by the husband directly to the wife, even though, at the time of the conveyance in question, the grantor was the head of a family residing in this state, the land described in the deed was then the homestead of the grantor, and there were then living children of said grantor, namely, the complainants.

The decision herein, affirming the decree dismissing the bill, is consonant with the doctrine announced in Norton v. Baya and Jackson v. Jackson, supra. The decisions last named were not overlooked, nor was the doctrine therein announced overruled or modified by the decision in this case.

The problem presented by the evidence in this case is not without its difficulties. The evidence leaves no doubt that the land in question was the homestead of the grantor father, J. S Lanier, on June 6, 1924, and for many years prior thereto. The chancellor apparently found, however, that there had been an abandonment of the homestead prior to July 29, 1924, the date of execution of the conveyance here in question. There is competent evidence in the record to sustain that conclusion. Certainly there is no such lack of it as to justify this court, under the longestablished rule in this jurisdiction, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • O'neal v. Miller
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1940
    ...and conduct abandoned the marital relation and the homestead exemption rights, the children having homes of their own. In Lanier v. Lanier, 95 Fla. 522, 116 So. 867, homestead property was held to have been abandoned by husband and wife. In Johns v. Bowden, 68 Fla. 32, 66 So. 155, the child......
  • Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1943
    ...Wilcox from Bradenton to Quincy for burial cannot destroy the testimony of Mrs. Osborne and Miss Parker. In the case of Lanier v. Lanier, 95 Fla. 522, 116 So. 867, 868, in part, said: 'We agree with the proposition of law advanced by appellants that the homestead intended by our Constitutio......
  • In re Mendoza
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 4, 2019
    ...with the fact of residence." Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox , 152 Fla. 889, 13 So.2d 448, 452 (1943) (quoting Lanier v. Lanier , 95 Fla. 522, 116 So. 867, 868 (1928) (emphasis added) ). Genesis of the Green Card Requirement Under Florida LawTwo Florida Supreme Court cases, Juarrero v. McNa......
  • Marsh v. Hartley
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1959
    ...homestead should be determined by a consideration of all the pertinent facts and circumstances of each individual case. Lanier v. Lanier, 1928, 95 Fla. 522, 116 So. 867; Nelson v. Hainlin, 1925 89 Fla. 356, 104 So. 589; City of Jacksonville v. Bailey, 1947, 159 Fla. 11, 30 So.2d 529; and Ol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT