SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON, D. C., APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH A. RICHTER AND EVA RICHTER, HIS WIFE, DAVE BASS AND EQUITABLE FINANCE & REALTY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Second National Bank of Washington, D.C. sought to enforce a D.C. judgment against Florida property owned by Joseph Richter by filing a creditor's bill in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the bill as to real estate because Richter had established the property as his homestead prior to the creditor's bill being filed, exempting it from creditor claims.
The property was exempt from the creditor's bill because Richter had established valid homestead status before the creditor's bill was filed. The order treating the motion to dismiss as a plea and sustaining it was correct, making it unnecessary to address other questions presented.
“As it appears from the record that appellee was entitled to the benefit of homestead exemption and that the property involved had acquired its homestead status and character under the law (as enunciated by this Court in the case of First National Bank of Chipley v. Peel, which opinion was filed December 15th, 1932, and reported in 145 Sou. 177), before judgment was obtained in the Florida Court and before Creditor's Bill was filed”
Establishes the critical timing requirement that homestead status must be acquired before the creditor's bill is filed in order to exempt the property from creditor claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant bank obtained a judgment in Washington, D.C. and filed a law action in Dade County Circuit Court on June 8, 1929. Before judgment in Florida…
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 Homestead Status cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case it appears that appellant procured a judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction in Washington, D. C.
On the 8th day of June, 1929, the appellant filed its law action in the Circuit Court of Dade County, based on the foregoing judgment. Before judgment in the law action in' Florida, appellant on the 28th day of Apidl, 1930, filed its Creditor’s Bill in the Circuit Court to subject certain property to the payment of the debt and to have decreed the property to be held in trust by the holders of the legal title for the sole use of the defendant debtor. It was alleged that the debtor was the holder and owner of the entire beneficial interest in and to such property.
The Creditor’s Bill was filed, as stated, on April 28th, 1930. Process was issued April 30th, 1930, and was served May 3rd. Defendant appeared and moved to dismiss the bill insofar as it involved the real estate therein described, making all necessary allegations to show that the property had become his homestead and h.ad acquired its homestead character prior to the institution of the suit; that before the institution of the suit by creditor’s bill the defendant had openly and notoriously commenced the construction of a residence on the property the construction of which he fairly, openly and publicly watched and supervised. There appeared from the beginning of such construction erected on the lot a large sign reading,
“J. A. RICHTER RESIDENCE & GARAGE
FRANK WYATT WOODS Architect Miami
J. BETTERIDGE.CO., INC. Contractors Miami,”
*239that the residence constructed thereon was completed on April 30th, 1930, and that he, with his family, on that day began to actually occupy the same as a homestead and that the legal title passed to him thereafter, but before motion to dismiss was filed; and that he was the head of a family residing in this State entitled to claim the benefit of homestead exceptions. See Milton v. Milton, 63 Fla. 533, 58 Sou. 718.
• As it appears from the record that appellee was entitled to the benefit of homestead exemption and that the property involved had acquired its homestead status and character under the law (as enunciated by this Court in the case of First National Bank of Chipley v. Peel, which opinion was filed December 15th, 1932, and reported in 145 Sou. 177), before judgment was obtained in the Florida Court and before Creditor’s Bill was filed the order treating the motion to dismiss as a plea and sustaining the same on motion to strike and the subsequent final decree were without error, it becomes unnecessary to discuss other questions presented by the record.
Orders and decree affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bessemer Props. v. Robert Howard Gamble et ux., 158 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1946)…status attached prior to proceedings to subject the property to creditors’ lien, regardless of where the title is lodged, it is exempt. First National Bank of Chipley v. Peel, 107 Fla. 413, 145 So. 177; Second National Bank v. Ritcher, 110 Fla, 237, 148 So. 517; Beall v. Pickney, 150 Fed. (2nd) 467. We have examined the cases and the questions relied on by appellant but we think the foregoing cases rule the case at bar. So the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed. CHAPMAN, C. J., BUFORD and ADAM…
-
Heddon v. Jones, 115 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1934)…for the express purpose of impressing it with a homestead character before judgment in the suit could be rendered against him. First Natl. Bank of Chipley v. Peel, 107 Fla. 413, 145 Sou. Rep. 177; Second Natl. Bank of Washington, D. C., v. Richter, 110 Fla. 237, 148 Sou. Rep. 517. In the case at bar the homestead claimant was living upon jproperty owned by him in the Town of Clermont when he gave his notes. Thereafter he moved from his home in Clermont to the grove property which was levied on and sought…
Authorities Cited
- Milton v. Milton, 63 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1912)
- The First Nat'l Bank of Chipley v. Peel, 107 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1932)