IN RE ESTATE OF ROGER B. TUDHOPE, DECEASED. KEVIN LAWRENCE TUDHOPE AND GARY M. FERNALD AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR BRIAN JAMES TUDHOPE, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALAN RUDKIN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROGER B. TUDHOPE, DECEASED, ERROL R. GARD, ELLIS P. HYMAN, D.D.S., AND MOSS-FEASTER FUNERAL HOMES, INC., 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.
This case addresses whether proceeds from the sale of a deceased's homestead pass to minor heirs with homestead protection intact or become subject to creditor claims. The court held that where homestead property vests in minor heirs before sale, the proceeds retain homestead character and are not subject to creditor claims to the same extent as when a homestead is ordered sold by will.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that because the homestead estate vested in the minor children before the sale occurred, the proceeds retain their homestead character and are not subject to the claims of the decedent's creditors in the same manner as proceeds from a homestead ordered sold by the decedent's will.
[1] Homestead property devised to minor children retains its homestead character and is not subject to the claims of the decedent's creditors, absent an intent to reinvest th…
[2] The proceeds from the sale of homestead property do not automatically become an asset of the estate subject to creditor claims when the property passes directly to minor…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Here, however, the homestead estate was not converted to dollars before it passed to and vested in Tudhope's minor children. It is that significant fact which condemns the application of Price and LaCroix to the instant case.”
The court identifies the critical factual distinction that determines whether homestead proceeds lose their homestead protection—timing of vesting in heirs relative to sale.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoger Tudhope died testate with two minor children and a mortgaged condominium. The probate court found the property to be a homestead and declared ti…
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 Florida Constitution Article X, Section 4 cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
When Roger Tudhope died, testate, he was survived by two minor children and possessed of an adult condominium subject to a mortgage. A probate proceeding was initiated. In an order issued by the probate court the condominium was found to be a homestead within the meaning of Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution and that title to the property passed to the two minor children as tenants in common. The order also directed the personal representative to surrender the condominium to the guardian of the minor children. The children, however, were unable to meet the mortgage and maintenance fee obligations associated with the condominium. The mortgagee agreed to refrain from foreclosure pending sale of the property and the personal representative was authorized to effect its sale. At closing, the title company revealed that an unsatisfied judg ment existed in favor of Errol Gard in the amount of $4,400. As a result of that fact, the net proceeds of the sale, $8,048, were placed in escrow. Following expiration of the time within which creditors were to assert claims against Tudhope’s estate, Gard filed a claim. Two other creditors, however, Moss-Feaster Funeral Home, Inc., and Ellis P. Hyman, had filed timely claims. The probate court entered a judgment concluding that the net proceeds deriving from the sale of the property could be reached by Tudhope’s creditors.
The trial court determined that because the minor children did not contemplate, pri-or to or at the time of the sale, to reinvest the proceeds in another homestead, this matter was controlled by Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Company v. La-Croix, 137 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1962) and Estate of Margarette Price v. West Florida Hospital, 513 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Neither LaCroix nor Price will support the result reached by the trial court.
In Price the First District, relying upon LaCroix, noted that “upon the sale of the house the proceeds became an asset of the estate subject to the claims of decedent’s creditors.” Price, 513 So. 2d 767. The factual setting in Price warranted the application of the LaCroix principle. Price’s will directed that the homestead be sold and the proceeds divided equally between her two adult children. The conclusion in Price that the proceeds lost their homestead character and were subject to the claims of the descendant’s creditors was unquestionably correct. Here, however, the homestead estate was not converted to dollars before it passed to and vested in Tudhope’s minor children. It is that significant fact which condemns the application of Price and LaCroix to the instant case.
We reverse, vacate the final judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THREADGILL, J., and CHARLES B. CURRY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKEAN v. Warburton, 919 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2005)…ill that her homestead be sold and the proceeds divided between her adult children, the proceeds lost their homestead character and became subject to the claims of creditors), cause dismissed, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1987); cf. In re Estate of Tudhope, 595 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (finding that because the homestead estate was not converted to dollars before it passed and vested in the decedent’s children as in Estate of Price, the proceeds could not be reached by creditors). In fact, the Second District ha…
-
In re Est. OF Jack Hamel v. Theodore Parker, P.A., 821 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…his exception to a situation in which the personal representative is given the option to distribute the property either in kind or through the proceeds of a sale. This court interpreted Price narrowly in Tudhope v. Rudkin (In re Estate of Tudhope), 595 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and we continue to do so today.2 General [*1280] ly, property rights passing by virtue of the death of a person vest at the time of death. See § 732.101(2), Fla. Stat. (2000) (involving intestate estates); § 732.514, Fla. Stat. (…1 / 2
-
Knadle v. Est. OF Evangeline Stewart Knadle, 686 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…nd the proceeds divided between her adult children, the proceeds lose their homestead character and become subject to the claims of creditors. See also Elmowitz v. Estate of Zimmerman, 647 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); cf. In re Estate of Tudhope, 595 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (since homestead estate was not converted to dollars before it passed and vested in decedent’s children as in Price, proceeds could not be reached by creditors). Here, Decedent’s will specifically directed that her homestead be so…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. LA Croix, 137 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1962)
- In re Est. OF Margarette Price v. W. Fla. Hosp., Inc., 513 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)