JESSE QUIROGA, APPELLANT,
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
A law firm appealed the denial of its motion to impress a charging lien on homeowner's insurance proceeds from hurricane damage. The court held that homestead property and its insurance proceeds are constitutionally exempt from attachment, and the homeowner cannot contract away this protection even through a contingent fee agreement, so the law firm's lien claim must fail.
The court held that homestead property and insurance proceeds derived from damage to homestead property are constitutionally exempt from forced sale and judgment liens, and a homeowner cannot through an unsecured agreement, including a contingent fee contract, divest himself of the exemptions afforded under Article X, section 4(a) of the Florida Constitution.
[1] Insurance proceeds from damage to constitutionally exempt homestead property are imbued with the same privilege as the homestead itself.
[2] A party cannot enter into an enforceable contract to divest themselves from the exemptions afforded by Florida's homestead provisions.
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“In the event a homestead is damaged through fire, wind or flood, the proceeds of any insurance recovery are imbued with the same privilege.”
Establishes that insurance proceeds from homestead damage receive the same constitutional exemption as the underlying homestead property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJesse Quiroga retained the Katzman law firm on a contingent fee basis to recover homeowner's insurance proceeds for hurricane damage to his homestead …
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 Insurance Proceeds cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying the law firm of Katzman Garfinkel and Rosenbaum’s motion to impress a charging lien on the homeowner’s insurance proceeds for damages caused by two hurricanes. The Katzman law firm secured the proceeds for the benefit of its client and policy insured, Jesse Quiroga, in appreciation for which Quiroga not only terminated the law firm’s contingent fee representation of him, but also sought to shield himself from any responsibility to compensate his counsel by claiming the insurance proceeds are exempt homestead property, not subject to attachment by means of a charging lien. See Art. X, § 4(a), Fla. Const.1
The parties do not dispute the hurricane-damaged property is constitu*102tionally exempt homestead property. See Cutler v. Cutler, 994 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“To qualify for protection under Article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution, a parcel of property must meet constitutionally defined size limitations and must be owned by a natural person who is a Florida resident who either makes or intends to make the property that person’s residence.”). In the event a homestead is damaged through fire, wind or flood, the proceeds of any insurance recovery are imbued with the same privilege. Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. La Croix, 137 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla.1962). Because Quiroga did not and, as a matter of public policy in this State, cannot through an unsecured agreement, such as the contingent fee agreement in this case, enter into an enforceable contract to divest himself from the exemptions afforded him through Article X, section 4(a), see Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla.2007), this Court is compelled to affirm the order under review, the equities of the matter notwithstanding. See Pub. Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946, 951 (Fla.1988) (“The homestead protection has never been based upon principles of equity.”) (citing Bigelow v. Dunphe, 143 Fla. 603, 197 So. 328, 330 (1940)); Pierrepont v. Humphreys (In re Newman’s Estate), 413 So.2d 140, 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“The homestead character of a piece of property ... arises and attaches from the mere existence of certain facts in combination in place and time.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Speed DRY, Inc. v. Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…its under the insurance contract. See § 627.422, Fla. Stat. (2017). The AOB conveys no interest in the homestead property. We find that Anchor’s reliance on Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2007), and Quiroga v. Citizens Property Insurance, 34 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), is misplaced. In Chames, the Florida Supreme Court held that a waiver of the homestead exemption from a forced sale or liens found in article X, section 4(a) does not allow a homesteader to waive the exemptions in an unsecured ag…
-
Landmark Constr. Inc. of Cent. Fla. v. Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…of the Florida Constitution prohibited the assignment of benefits in question. The order granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment simply stated, in relevant part: The Defendant’s Motion is Granted. See Quiroga v. Citizens Property Ins. Co., 34 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (Insurance proceeds that result from a recovery due to damage to homestead property are “imbued” with homestead protections under the Florida Constitution.). Had the work already been completed on the property in reliance of this…
-
JD Restoration, Inc v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 245 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. Lopez, 531 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1988)
- Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. LA Croix, 137 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1962)
- Bigelow v. Dudley C. Dunphe, 143 Fla. 603 (Fla. 1940)
- Chames v. DeMAYO, 972 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2007)
- Cutler v. Cutler, 994 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Simons v. State, 413 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- In re The Est. OF W. J. Newman v. Humphreys, 413 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)