BESSEMER PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
ROBERT HOWARD GAMBLE ET UX. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bessemer Properties sought to levy on land titled to Mildred Gamble to satisfy a judgment against her husband Robert Gamble. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision that Robert Gamble held an equitable interest in the property through his contributions to his wife's separate property, entitling him to homestead exemption from creditors.
Gamble's contributions to his wife's separate property created an equitable interest in him as head of a family, entitling him to claim homestead exemption. Homestead exemption extends to any right or interest the head of a family holds in land, and legal title is not essential. The homestead status attached prior to the creditors' lien, making the property exempt.
“It is settled law in Florida that Section 1, Article X, of the Constitution, relating to the homestead, should be liberally construed in the interest of the home, and that a homestead exemption extends to any right or interest the head of a family may hold in land.”
Establishes the foundational principle that homestead exemptions are broadly construed and extend to equitable interests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Howard Gamble purchased approximately six acres in Duval County and had the deed executed in his wife Mildred Franklin Gamble's name as a free …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Head Of A Family cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee, Robert Howard Gamble, purchased approximately six acres of land in Duval County and had the deed executed in favor of his wife, Mildred Franklin Gamble, a free dealer. The husband subsequently constructed a home on the property and made other expenditures in the way of upkeep, *39insurance and taxes. In August, 1941, appellant filed its bill of complaint in the Circuit Court, praying that said property be levied upon and sold to pay a certain judgment secured by it against Robert Howard Gamble. Gamble and his wife filed separate answers, in which the wife claimed the property as her separate property, while Gamble claimed it as his homestead, entitled to exemption from plaintiff’s judgment under the Constitution.
A special master was appointed, testimony was taken and thereafter the bill was amended to conform to facts developed in the evidence. On final hearing the homestead claim of Gamble was upheld and the bill of complainant was dismissed. This appeal was prosecuted.
Appellant has argued five questions. The material ones are predicated on the dismissal of the bill in toto, while questions were pending that were not litigated: The holding that Gamble’s contributions to his wife’s separate property created an interest in which he was entitled to claim a homestead exemption, and was the court' justified in assuming that the homestead status existed at the time of the decree appealed from.
Gamble claims his homestead on the basis of contributions to his wife’s separate property. If this claim is good and legally well grounded, all of the other questions go out of the picture and it becomes unnecessary to discuss them.
It is not disputed that the parties were residing on the property; that it was in the State of Florida; that the wife was a free dealer and held title to the property, and that the husband made the contributions claimed to have been made. Some question is raised as to the continuity of the homestead, but the Chancellor settled that and we see no reason to hold him in error on that point.
It is settled law in Florida that Section 1, Article X, of the Constitution, relating to the homestead, should be liberally construed in the interest of the home, and that a homestead exemption extends to any right or interest the head of a family may hold in land. Pasco v. Harley, 73 Fla. 819, 75 So. 30; Hill v. First National Bank, 73 Fla. 1092, 75 So. 614; Milton v. Milton, 63 Fla. 533, 58 So. 718. There is no ques*40tion that Gamble was the head of a family and that his. contributions to his wife’s separate property gave him an equitable interest on the basis of which he could claim his homestead exemption. It was not essential that he hold the legal title to the land.
This court has also held that a one-half interest, the right of possession, or any beneficial interest in land gave the claimant a right to exempt it as his homestead. Morgan v. Bailey, 90 Fla. 47, 105 So. 143; Hill v. First National Bank, 73 Fla. 1092, 75 So. 614; Coleman v. Williams, 146 Fla. 45, 200 So. 207. It is only necessary that the homestead status attaches prior to the attachment of the creditors’ lien.
This Court is committed to the doctrine that the transfer of homestead property is not a fraud on creditors. If the homestead status attached prior to proceedings to subject the property to creditors’ lien, regardless of where the title is lodged, it is exempt. First National Bank of Chipley v. Peel, 107 Fla. 413, 145 So. 177; Second National Bank v. Ritcher, 110 Fla, 237, 148 So. 517; Beall v. Pickney, 150 Fed. (2nd) 467.
We have examined the cases and the questions relied on by appellant but we think the foregoing cases rule the case at bar. So the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. LA Croix, 137 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1962)…under process of any court. The case law of this state dictates that homestead exemption laws should be liberally applied to the end that the family shall have shelter and shall not be reduced to absolute destitution. Bessemer Properties v. Gamble, 158 Fla. 38, 27 So. 2d 832; Olesky v. Nicholas, Fla., 82 So. 2d 510; Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla., 76 So. 2d 792. Obviously Article X intended to confer valuable rights on the owner of the homestead and was not drawn for the benefit of creditors. However, it should…
-
S. Walls, Inc. v. Stilwell Corp. & Andrew O. Stilwell, 810 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…aim the homestead exemption, we find guidance in decisions of rather ancient vintage which adopted the general rule that the individual claiming homestead exemption need not hold fee simple title to the property. See Bessemer Props., Inc. v. Gamble, 158 Fla. 38, 27 So. 2d 832 (1946). In Coleman v. Williams, 146 Fla. 45, 200 So. 207 (1941), the court provided: “The Constitution limits the homestead land area that may be exempted, but it does not define or limit the estates in land to which homestead exempt…
-
Nationwide Fin. Corp. of Colo. v. Thompson, 400 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…the final judgment of dissolution. The material time for determining the priority of a lien over a claim of homestead exemption is the time the lien would have attached if homestead exemption were not applicable. Bessemer Properties, Inc. v. Gamble, 27 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1946). See also 16 Fla.Jur. Homesteads § 41; Maines & Maines, Our Legal Chameleon Revisited: Florida's Homestead Exemption, 30 U.Fla. L.Rev. 227 (1978). In this case, the validity of the homestead claim must be evaluated with regard to the peri…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Milton v. Milton, 63 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1912)
- Pasco v. Jamis T. Harley, 73 Fla. 819 (Fla. 1917)
- Tampa Bay Apt. Hotel Co. v. Monrose, 73 Fla. 894 (Fla. 1917)
- Hill v. First Nat'l Bank of Marianna & H. A. Bowles as Sheriff of Jackson Cnty., 73 Fla. 1092 (Fla. 1917)
- Morgan v. Mira F. Bailey, 90 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1925)
- The First Nat'l Bank of Chipley v. Peel, 107 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1932)
- Coleman v. Williams, 146 Fla. 45 (Fla. 1941)
- Second Nat'l Bank of Wash. v. Richter, 110 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1933)