Robbins v. Robbins
| Decision Date | 26 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-937,77-937 |
| Citation | 360 So.2d 10 |
| Parties | George ROBBINS and Aaron Robbins, Appellants, v. May ROBBINS and Jere Pinco, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James P. Bennett of Bennett & Dietrich, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Michael A. Smith and Ray J. Peacock of Goza, Hall, Peacock & Peters, Clearwater, for appellees.
Appellants/plaintiffs, George and Aaron Robbins, filed suit to quiet title to a parcel of real property. They bring a plenary appeal from an order granting with prejudice appellees/defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. 1 The following facts alleged by appellants/plaintiffs are taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
On August 4, 1959, Hyman Robbins and his wife, Jeanette Robbins, natural parents of appellants/plaintiffs, purchased the real property at issue in this case and took title as an estate by the entirety. Jeanette Robbins died on July 7, 1965. Hyman Robbins subsequently remarried and on May 25, 1966, executed a deed conveying the property to himself and his second wife, May Robbins, as an estate by the entirety. May Robbins did not join in the deed, which recited that the consideration for the transfer was "one dollar and other good and valuable consideration . . ." Hyman Robbins died on May 11, 1968. On December 10, 1975, May Robbins, the unremarried widow of Hyman Robbins, executed a deed conveying the property to her son, Jere Pinco, subject to a life estate in herself.
Appellants/plaintiffs then initiated this action against May Robbins and Jere Pinco seeking a declaration that appellants/plaintiffs possessed a remainder interest in the real property. They alleged that at the time of the 1966 conveyance Hyman and May Robbins were living on the property as a homestead, that the 1966 deed was null and void, and that the attempted conveyance in 1975 was in derogation of their title. We hold that appellants/plaintiffs' complaint stated a cause of action.
Case law firmly established that under the 1885 constitution, which was in effect in 1966 when Hyman Robbins attempted to create an estate by the entirety with May Robbins, both spouses were expressly required to join in the execution of a deed conveying homestead property. Thomas v. Craft, 55 Fla. 842, 46 So. 594 (1908); Moorefield v. Byrne, 140 So.2d 876 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); 16 Fla.Jur., Homestead, Section 57 (1957). Additionally, the homestead provision of the 1885 constitution was construed to implicitly require that any alienation of homestead property be accompanied by valuable consideration. See, e. g., Jackson v. Jackson, 90 Fla. 563, 107 So. 255 (1925). Therefore, a gratuitous conveyance of homestead property from husband to wife was held to be void, at least where there were children. Church v. Lee, 102 Fla. 478, 136 So. 242 (1931); Reed v. Fain, 145 So.2d 858 (Fla.1962).
Appellees/defendants argue that subsection 2 of Section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1977) validates the 1966 conveyance. That statute by its terms validates prior deeds made between husband and wife which would otherwise have been effective except for the fact that the parties were married. We do not agree.
First, the deed here in question was void ab initio because the attempted conveyance was in derogation of two requirements under the 1885 constitution, joinder and valuable consideration. The supreme court has held that a statute is "unconstitutional if it be construed in such manner as to breathe life into an instrument made and executed in contravention of constitutional inhibitions." Reed v. Fain, supra. Accordingly, we hold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v. Pastore
...transfer the homestead as a completed contract, the constitution may require that a defective homestead deed is void. See Robbins v. Robbins, 360 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA), appeal dismissed, 365 So.2d 714 (Fla.1978). A mortgage, on the other hand, involves two separate concepts. It is an execu......
-
New Testament Baptist Church v. Dot
...by the statute of limitations. We also distinguish homestead cases such as Reed v. Fain, 145 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1962), Robbins v. Robbins, 360 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), and Gotshall v. Taylor, 196 So.2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)1, which hold that the statute of limitations is inapplicable to ......
-
Clemons v. Thornton
...(1972)). A purported transfer of the homestead, not in compliance with constitutional requirements, is void. See Robbins v. Robbins, 360 So.2d 10, 11-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), appeal dismissed, 365 So.2d 714 (Fla.1978); Gotshall v. Taylor, 196 So.2d 479, 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. denied, ......
-
Nordman v. McCormick, 97-2454
...property from a husband to a wife under the 1885 Florida Constitution was void when minor children existed. See Robbins v. Robbins, 360 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The deed is deemed to be void ab initio. See Chapman v. Chapman, 526 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also, Sigmund v. E......
-
Florida's homestead realty: is it exempt from imposition of an equitable lien for nonpayment of alimony and child support?
...v. Caggiano, 605 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1992); Cross v. Strader Consti. Corp., 768 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2000); Robbins v. Robbins, 360 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. (25) See Fla. Const. art. XI, [section][section]] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (2007). By law, an amendment must relate to a single subject bef......