W. L. SHAMBOW, JOHN P. SHAMBOW, MARY J. SHAMBOW AND L. G. SHAMBOW,
v.
GEORGE H. SHAMBOW
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.
Four of five children of Mary L. Shambow sued for partition of their mother's home against their brother who lived there for ten years caring for her. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the mother was not the "head of a family" under the homestead exemption, and therefore the son retained his status as head of his own family (himself and wife), making the property subject to partition.
The mother did not qualify as "head of a family" because she exercised no personal authority or supervision over her son except to approve or disapprove actions he took while managing her business. The son remained the head of his own family and thus the property was subject to partition among all five children.
“when the relation of husband and wife, or parent and child, does not exist, the "head of the family" under the Constitution would not be recognized except where an established and continuing personal authority and responsibility was shown to exist as between the parties”
Establishes the legal standard for recognizing a 'head of family' relationship under Florida's homestead exemption when no formal family relation exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1927, property was conveyed to Mary L. Shambow and her husband in an estate by the entireties; the husband died and Mary L. remained. All five chil…
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
Suit for partition was 'filed by four of the five children of Mary L. Shambow against the fifth to divide the home place of the mother. The chancellor held that Mary L. Shambow was not the head of a family.
In 1927 the property was vested in Mary L. Shambow and her husband, Levi Shambow, in an estate by the entireties, at which time the husband died. The survivor continued to make her home on the property alone. All five children re*761sided outside the State. The mother was aged and infirm and procured her son, the appellee, to come and live with her.
Appellee abandoned his home and with his wife moved into the home of his mother. He resided there for about ten years until his mother’s death, during which period he attended to all of his mother’s business and gave her every attention that an affectionate and dutiful son should. He also contributed financially to the household expenses. He came to look after his mother under a promise, he had made to his father in the latter’s lifetime. His mother also promised him compensation at the rate of $500.00 per annum, payment to be made out of the estate (uncertain whether payment was to be from the mother’s or father’s estate) after her death.
We have held that when the relation of husband and wife, or parent and child, does not exist, the “head of the family” under the Constitution would not be recognized except where an established and continuing personal authority and responsibility was shown to exist as between the parties. Dania Bank v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 127 Fla. 45, 172 So. 476; Johns, et al., v. Bowden, et al., 68 Fla. 32, 66 So. 155; Whidden v. Abbott, et al., 124 Fla. 293, 168 So. 253.
The chancellor was warranted in finding from the evidence that appellee’s mother exercised no-personal authority or supervision over appellee except to approve or disapprove of action taken by him while attending to her business. There was no showing that appellee abandoned his relation as the head of his own family consisting of himself and wife.
We have not overlooked the contention that appellee is estopped to dispute the homestead character of the property because he is acquiesced in his mother’s claim of homestead exemption from taxation. This was a circumstance which did not sufficiently convince the chancellor. When the evidence is viewed in its entirety, we cannot say that the decree is erroneous.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waymon Solomon v. Davis, 100 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1958)…mily headship. Anderson v. Anderson, Fla., 44 So. 2d 652. Perhaps for the latter reason the rule of “personal authority and responsibility” has been used largely to determine family headship where a family in law does not exist. Shambow v. Shambow, 153 Fla. 760, 15 So. 2d 836. “When the natural relation of husband and wife or parent and child * * * does not exist, the relation should be one in which an established and continuing personal authority, responsibility, and obligation actually rests upon one as…
-
In re Est. of Anna Z. Kionka v. Hebbard, 113 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…179. Parties cannot stipulate as to a family relationship so the rule of “personal authority and responsibility” has been generally used to determine the family head where a family in law does not exist, Solomon v. Davis, supra; Shambow v. Shambow, 153 Fla. 760, 15 So. 2d 836. The relationship should be one in which an established and continuing personal authority, responsibility and obligation actually rests upon one as the head of a family for the welfare of others. Although some states have adopted the…
-
In re Est. of Eugenia L. Wilder v. Mitchell, 240 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…head of a family such as is contemplated by the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. See Whidden v. Abbott, 124 Fla. 293, 168 So. 253 (1936); Dania Bank v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 127 Fla. 45, 172 So. 476; Shambow v. Shambow, 153 Fla. 760, 15 So. 2d 836. Appellant having failed to demonstrate that the lower court’s determination that the decedent was not the head of a family is erroneous, the judgment reviewed herein is Affirmed. JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.…
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
- Johns v. Bowden, 68 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1914)
- Whidden v. Vastia Abbott, 124 Fla. 293 (Fla. 1936)
- The Dania Bank v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 127 Fla. 45 (Fla. 1937)
- Gibson v. Robinson, 127 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1937)