CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA AND ELDA SANTEIRO-MARTINEZ, AS CO-GUARDIANS OF THE PROPERTY OF ELENA ALEMAN, INCOMPETENT, AND ELDA SANTEIRO-MARTINEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD R. TESCHER, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, NICHOLAS M. DANIELS, COCONUT GROVE BANK AND LUIS SOUBLETTE, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF ELENA SANTEIRO-SOUBLETTE, DECEASED, LUIS SOUBLETTE, INDIVIDUALLY, JORGE LUIS ROMANACH, ELDA MARIA ROMANACH, JUAN JOSE ROMANACH, AND ALEJANDRO ROMANACH, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-02-13
No. 89-1830
Before BASKIN, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
557 So. 2d 615 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990) Caution
Cited by 13 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

This case addresses whether homestead property is subject to devise when the decedent executed a valid antenuptial agreement with her spouse renouncing all estate rights. The court held that because the spouse effectively predeceased the decedent by waiving his spousal rights, the homestead was not protected from devise and passed through the residuary clause of the will.


Holding

The homestead property is subject to devise because the valid antenuptial agreement is the legal equivalent of the spouse having predeceased the decedent. Since the decedent was not survived by a spouse or minor child, the homestead was not protected from devise and passed through the residuary clause of the will.


Headnotes

[1] A valid antenuptial agreement in which a spouse waives all rights to the other's estate, including homestead rights, is the legal equivalent of that spouse having predece…

[2] Homestead property is not subject to devise if the owner is survived by a spouse or minor child, unless the homestead is devised to the spouse and there is no minor child…

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

Key Quotes

“the valid antenuptial agreement which he signed is the legal equivalent of his having predeceased the decedent. Legally, therefore, the decedent was not survived by a spouse.”

Establishes the core holding that a valid antenuptial agreement renouncing spousal rights is treated as legal prededecease for homestead protection purposes.

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

Elena Santeiro-Soublette died survived by her husband, two adult children, and four adult grandchildren. Before marriage, the husband executed a valid…

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
LEVY, Judge.

LEVY, Judge.

This case involves the issue of whether certain homestead property owned by decedent Elena Santeiro-Soublette was subject to devise. The decedent was survived by her husband, two adult children, and four adult grandchildren. The decedent’s spouse had executed an antenuptial agreement prior to the marriage renouncing all rights in the decedent’s estate, including homestead rights.1

The decedent’s will did not contain a specific devise of the property, and the decedent’s personal representative petitioned the probate court for approval to sell the property. The probate court entered an order authorizing the sale and the personal representative, in an attempt to clear title to the property, filed a petition to determine homestead. The probate court found that the property did constitute homestead, as defined by the Florida Constitution, and thus was subject to the prohibition against devise of homestead property where a decedent is survived by a spouse or a minor child. However, because of the antenuptial agreement, wherein the decedent’s spouse waived his rights to the property, the probate court held that the husband was deemed to have predeceased the decedent. Thus, because the decedent’s children were not minors and her spouse was deemed to have predeceased her, the property was held to be subject to devise. Since the decedent had not specifically devised the homestead, the residuary clause of the will governed its disposition. The probate court refused to set aside the order authorizing the sale of the property and the decedent’s two children and City National Bank of Florida appeal. We affirm.

Article X, section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution and Section 732.4015, Florida Statutes (1987), prohibit the devise of homestead property where the decedent is survived by a spouse or minor child.2 Here, it is undisputed that the decedent was not survived by minor or dependent children. And, although the decedent’s husband was physically alive at the time of decedent’s death, the valid antenuptial agreement which he signed is the legal equivalent of his having predeceased the decedent. Legally, therefore, the decedent was not survived by a spouse. See Hulsh v. Hulsh, 431 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983).

Because the decedent was not survived by a spouse or a minor child, she was free to devise the homestead without restriction. See In re McGinty’s Estate, 258 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1971); In re Estate of Hill, 552 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In the absence of a specific devise of the homestead property, it passed through the residuary clause of the decedent’s will.

Accordingly, the trial court was eminently correct in deciding not to set aside the order authorizing the sale of the property.

Affirmed.

. The validity of the antenuptial agreement signed by the decedent and the decedent's spouse has not been challenged. The antenup-tial agreement specifically provided that:

The parties hereto do hereby, each to the other surrender, renounce and release all and every of their rights, interest, dower, homestead, and curtesy in and to the estate and property of the other, in whatever form or manner identified for all times during and after the termination of this contemplated marriage by death or otherwise ...

. Article X, Section 4(c) provides:

(c) The homestead shall not be subject to devise if the owner is survived by spouse or minor child, except the homestead may be devised to the owner’s spouse if there be no minor child. The owner of homestead real estate joined by the spouse if married, may alienate the homestead by mortgage, sale or gift and, if married, may by deed transfer the title to an estate by the entirety with the spouse. If the owner or spouse is incompetent, the method of alienation or encumbrance shall be as provided by law.

Section 732.4015, Florida Statutes (1987) provides:

Devise of homestead. — As provided by the Florida Constitution, the homestead shall not be subject to devise if the owner is survived by a spouse or minor child, except that the homestead may be devised to the owner’s spouse if there is no minor child.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • City Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Tescher, 578 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1991)
    …HARDING, Justice. We have for review City National Bank v. Tescher, 557 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), in which the Third District Court of Appeal construed article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution as approving the authority of a decedent to devise homestead property when survived by adult children and a spouse who has wai…
  • Hartwell v. Blasingame, 564 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
    …th those announced by the Fifth District in Wadsworth v. First Union National Bank, No. 89-00272 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 22, 1990) [15 F.L.W. D511]. The result, however, appears consistent with that of the Third District in City National Bank v. Tescher, 557 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and with the reasoning in Judge Dauksch’s dissent in Wadsworth. Mr. Jurmu died on January 17, 1988, at the age of eighty-seven. He had been married twice. His first wife, Winona Jurmu, was Ms. Hartwell’s mother. Ms. Hartwell was…
  • Wadsworth v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 564 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
    …banc majority opinion, that when the homesteader’s spouse signs a valid antenup-tial agreement and dies without minor children, the homesteader can devise the homestead away from his lineal descendants. See City National Bank of Florida v. Tescher, 557 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw