UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
WAYNE D. BOYETTE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1982-05-05
No. AG-198
MILLS and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
413 So. 2d 1250 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The United States appealed a circuit court order that recognized Wayne Boyette's homestead exemption claim on a Columbia County, Florida property. The appellate court reversed, holding that Boyette could not maintain homestead status on property he abandoned over twelve years ago while establishing a new family unit and homestead elsewhere.


Holding

No. A person cannot maintain homestead status on property following the break-up of a family unit and establishment of a new family unit elsewhere. Wayne Boyette's homestead claim on the Columbia County property could not be sustained because he was absent for more than twelve years and during that period remarried, with his new wife occupying property elsewhere on which they declared homestead.


Headnotes

[1] A party cannot maintain homestead status on property after the dissolution of a family unit and the establishment of a new family unit elsewhere.

[2] Establishing a new residence and claiming homestead on that new property, while absent from the original property, can constitute abandonment of the original homestead.

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

Key Quotes

“whether one maintains the homestead status of property following the break-up of a family unit and the establishment of a new family unit elsewhere. The answer, in the opinion of this Court, is that he cannot.”

States the central legal issue and the court's holding on homestead status requirements

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Wayne and Ethel Boyette separated in 1971, with Ethel quitclaiming her interest in the Columbia County homestead to Wayne in exchange for $25,000 and …

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.


Opinion of the Court
SHAW, Judge.

SHAW, Judge.

This is an appeal from a Circuit Court order denying appellant’s “motion for order adjudicating invalid the claims of Wayne D. Boyette and Rozella Boyette of homesteads exempt from forced sale.”

On October 22, 1971, Wayne D. Boyette and Ethel Boyette entered into a separation and property settlement agreement which was later incorporated into a final order dissolving the marriage of the parties on February 4, 1972. For the sum of $25,000 in cash and Wayne’s agreement to allow her to remain on the Columbia County homestead for a monthly rental payment of $100.00, Ethel executed a quitclaim deed to all her interest in the property. She moved out after about three years, purchased a home in Jasper, Hamilton County, Florida, and established her homestead there. Wayne, who had physically moved out of the Columbia County property in January of 1969, married Roxeanna a few days after his marriage to Ethel was dissolved. Wayne and Roxeanna bought and occupied a home in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida, on which Roxeanna claimed homestead for tax purposes while Wayne continued to claim homestead in Columbia County. Although he claims otherwise, it is clear from the record that Wayne registered and voted in Volusia County in 1972. Around 1975 Wayne and Roxeanna moved to and occupied a residence in Houston, Texas. There he registered and voted, secured a Texas driver’s license and allowed his Florida license to expire. In 1979 Wayne maintained dual registration in both Texas and Florida and voted in Texas in the November, 1980, election. While he does not seriously challenge the above outlined chronology of events, he claims that throughout the period in question he visited the Columbia County property about once a month for the purpose of checking on it and attending to routine maintenance. He claims also that he maintained an electrical connection in his name, maintained a telephone listing in his name, and maintained a mailing address at the residence. He testified that he never intended to abandon the property as his homestead, always considered it to be his homestead, and had only been living in the State of Texas because of adverse financial circumstances and intended to return to Columbia County when his economic fortunes improved. The circuit court order adjudged that the homestead claimed by Wayne Boyette is determined to be in fact a homestead under the laws of the State of Florida, subject to all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. This brings into focus the issue to be resolved, to wit: whether one maintains the homestead status of property following the break-up of a family unit and the establishment of a new family unit elsewhere. The answer, in the opinion of this Court, is that he cannot. Wayne was not only absent in excess of twelve years from the Columbia County property on which he claims homestead, but during that twelve year period he remarried, and he and his new wife occupied and declared homestead on property elsewhere. The facts clearly demonstrate that Wayne Boyette was not the head of a family occupying the disputed homestead during the period in question, but was in fact a member, if not the head, of an entirely different family unit residing elsewhere. His claim of homestead cannot be sustained on the facts. The trial court’s finding to the contrary is REVERSED and the cause is remanded for disposition consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MILLS and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Davis v. Amerifirst Bank, 578 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …omestead in the first instance, it lost this status when the maker of the note and mortgage, and the owner of the property, became divorced. Miller v. West Palm Beach Atlantic National Bank, 142 Fla. 22, 194 So. 230 (1943); United States v. Boyette, 413 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); 29 Fla.Jur.2d, Homesteads § 76 (p. 331); and 4) Even if the property did have homestead status, same was duly waived by the execution of a waiver by the maker’s wife, with all the formalities of a deed, which was attached to the…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw