ALBERT E. FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
HAZEL F. BARNES AND JAMES DOUGLAS BARNES, AND JACKIE BARNES, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that Florida no longer requires a contract to sell homestead property to be executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. The trial court had invalidated a homestead sales contract with only one attesting witness, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the 1968 Florida Constitution's deletion of the phrase "duly executed" eliminated the two-witness requirement for homestead contracts.
A contract to sell homestead property no longer requires execution in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. The deletion of "duly executed" from Article X, Section 4(c) of the 1968 Constitution eliminated the two-witness requirement, making homestead sales contracts subject to the same execution requirements as contracts for non-homestead real estate.
[1] A contract to sell homestead property in Florida no longer requires execution in the presence of two subscribing witnesses.
[2] The deletion of the phrase "duly executed" from the constitutional provision governing homesteads eliminated the requirement for two subscribing witnesses on instruments…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that it is no longer required in Florida that a contract to sell homestead property be executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses.”
The court's primary holding establishing that the two-witness requirement for homestead sales contracts has been eliminated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord entered into a contract to sell homestead property. The contract contained the signature of only one witness attesting to the seller's execution.…
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 Constitutional Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
We hold that it is no longer required in Florida that a contract to sell homestead property be executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses.
In this case, a contract for the sale of homestead property contained the signature of only one witness attesting to the execution by the seller. The trial court held that there must be two witnesses. We reverse upon the authority of our recent holding in Carroll v. Dougherty, 355 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).1
In Wickes Corp. v. Moxley, 342 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) this court discussed the constitutional provision governing the mortgage of a homestead:
[Ujnder the prior constitutional provisions a homestead could only be mortgaged by a “duly executed” instrument; and the courts uniformly held that “duly executed” under these provisions meant that such a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by § 689.01 . . . which . required the presence of two subscribing witnesses.
342 So. 2d at 841. In Wickes the court pointed out that Art. X, § 4(c) of the 1968 Constitution omitted the words “duly executed”. The Wickes court reasoned that the deletion of this language — which had been the underpinning for the requirement that there be two witnesses on a homestead mortgage — indicated that two witnesses were no longer required to the execution of a mortgage on homestead property.2
In Carroll v. Dougherty, supra, this court was faced with the issue whether “there is any longer a requirement that a contract to sell homestead property be executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses” and, more specifically, whether “the rationale of Wickes is applicable to contracts to sell homestead realty.” 355 So. 2d at 844. Judge Grimes reasoned that:
[B]y virtue of the deletion of the words “duly executed” from the new constitution, we are drawn to the inescapable conclusion that contracts to convey homestead realty fall into the same category as contracts to convey any other kind of real estate.
355 So. 2d at 845. Continuing, Judge Grimes stated:
Since our reasoning in Wickes has now been adopted by the supreme court, we believe that court would now hold that the elimination of these words also dispensed with the requirement of two witnesses on a contract to convey homestead.
355 So. 2d at 845.
We find no merit with appellant’s remaining contention that the trial court erred in finding that the subject property was homestead property.
Reversed and remanded.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . Carroll v. Dougherty, supra, was decided after the trial court reached its decision.
. The supreme court affirmed in Moxley v. Wickes Corp., 356 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Efterpi Benasutti v. Costalas, 526 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…We reverse. The trial court erred in applying section 689.01 to the facts of this case. We have previously held that a contract for sale of homestead property need not be executed with the formality of a deed required by the statute. Ford v. Barnes, 366 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The agreement in this case can be compared to a contract for sale for purposes of section 689.01. The agreement itself did not create an interest in the property in favor of appellant. If the agreement is valid (which must be det…
Authorities Cited
- The Wickes Corp. v. Moxley, 342 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Ray Robert Moxley et ux. v. The Wickes Corp., 356 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1978)
- Leander Carroll and Jessie J. Carroll v. Dougherty, 355 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)