LLOYD M. ROUTMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANDRE LESLY DESVARIEUX, APPELLANT,
v.
YANICK DESVARIEUX, NATURAL GUARDIAN OF TRICIA MARIE-JUDE PRAGUE DESVARIEUX AND MELISSA MARIE-PIERRE DESVARIEUX, MINORS, 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 estate of Dr. Desvarieux appeals an order designating his home as homestead property for his two minor children from a prior marriage. The court affirms, holding that Dr. Desvarieux qualified as head of a 'family in law' based on his legal duty to support the children and his actual discharge of that duty through regular support payments.
The home was properly adjudicated as homestead for the children. Dr. Desvarieux was properly regarded as head of a 'family in law' arising out of his legal duty to support his children, which he in fact discharged, thus satisfying the homestead requirements of article X, section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution.
[1] A decedent's home may be set aside as homestead for minor children if the decedent had a legal duty to support them and discharged that duty, even if the children reside…
[2] A person can be considered the head of a "family in law" for homestead purposes by virtue of a legal duty to support arising from a family relationship.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“These facts clearly show that Dr. Desvarieux was properly regarded as the head of a 'family in law' arising out of the legal duty to support his children which he in fact discharged, and thus that the home was properly adjudicated as homestead under article X, section 4(c), Florida Constitution.”
The court's holding establishing that the homestead designation was proper based on the legal duty to support and actual discharge of that duty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Desvarieux died while owning a Dade County parcel of real estate where he resided. He had two minor children from a prior marriage who lived with …
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
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Dr. Desvarieux’s estate challenges an order setting aside a parcel of Dade County real estate as homestead in favor of his two minor children by his ex-wife. It was stipulated that, at the time of his death, the decedent lived on the property in question which was titled in his name, and that he regularly made the $70.00 per week per •child payments required by a New York divorce decree for the support of his two girls, who resided with their mother in New York City; accordingly, he named the children as his dependents on his income tax returns, indicating that he contributed more than half of their support.
These facts clearly show that Dr. Des-varieux was properly regarded as the head of a “family in law” arising out of the legal duty to support his children which he in fact discharged, and thus that the home was properly adjudicated as homestead under article X, section 4(c), Florida Constitution. Holden v. Estate of Gardner, 420 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1982);1 see In re Estate of Schorr, 409 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Indeed, in Estate of Deem v. Shinn, 297 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), which is the very definition of an a fortiori case, the court reached this conclusion on facts very much like these, even though, unlike Dr. Desvarieux, the decedent there completely refused to acknowledge his obligations to his child and made no contributions at all to her support. In the light of the undisputed facts and the established law, the result reached below is so plainly and inarguably correct that this appeal must be regarded as completely frivolous.2
Affirmed.
. The court said:
In determining whether a person is the head of a family, Florida courts have long used a test which requires a showing of either: (1) a legal duty to support which arises out of a family relationship, or (2) continuing communal living by at least two individuals under such circumstances that one is regarded as in charge. Killian v. Lawson, 387 So. 2d 960 (Fla.1980); Solomon v. Davis, 100 So. 2d 177 (Fla.1958); Beck v. Wylie, 60 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1952); Heard v. Mathis, 344 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Brown v. Hutch, 156 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). While the former requirement looks to a "family in law,” the latter looks to a "family in fact,” which arises out of a moral obligation to support.
420 So. 2d at 1083.
. We are frank to say that we have prepared this opinion rather than the "per curiam affirmed” the appeal so richly deserves so that the trial court may be aware of our views when the time comes to award fees for the administration of the estate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isaacs v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…hed by “a showing of either: (1) a legal duty to support which arises out of a family relationship, or (2) continuing communal living by at least two individuals under such circumstances that one is regarded as in charge.” Routman v. Desvarieux, 467 So. 2d 1090, 1091 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus, if a married owner was not the head of his or her family, the property did not qualify as homestead and could have been alienated without the spouse’s joinder. See Berger v. Lewison, 521 So. 2d 311, 311 (Fla. 3…
-
Isaacs v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…lished by “a showing of either: (1) a legal duty to support which arises out of a family relationship, or (2) continuing communal living by at least two individuals under such circumstances that one is regarded as in charge.” Routman v. Desvarieux, 467 So. 2d 1090, 1091 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus, if a married owner was not the head of his or her family, the property did not qualify as homestead and could have been alienated without the spouse’s joinder. See Berger v. Lewison, 521 So. 2d 311, 311 (Fla. 3d…
Authorities Cited
- Holden v. Est. OF Mary Lee Gardner, 420 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1982)
- Beck v. Wylie, 60 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1952)
- Brown v. Hutch, 156 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Waymon Solomon v. Davis, 100 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1958)
- In re the Est. of Frank C. Deem v. Shinn, 297 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Killian v. Lawson, 387 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1980)
- Heard v. Mathis, 344 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- In re Est. OF Leonard Schorr, 409 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)