OLIE LOCKHART, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOSIAH S. SASSER, DECEASED, ET AL.,
v.
ZERA SASSER, A WIDOW
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.
The court held that the decedent's homestead property, which included an apartment building where he occupied one unit, could not be devised by will.
Josiah S. Sasser died owning and residing on less than one-half acre of land improved with a six-unit apartment building, occupying one unit as his ho…
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 Constitutional Homestead Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the. record reveals that Josiah S. Sasser died in Chattahoochee on the 19th day of April, 1944, at which time he owned and lived on lot No. 59 of Edwards Addition to the incorporatéd municipality of Chattahoochee, constituting less than one-half acre.
He had theretofore attempted to devise by will the property to a daughter, the appellant.
At the time of his death Sasser had. a living lawful wife and at least one minor child who were living separate and apart from him. The widow filed suit to void the will as to the property involved on the theory that it was the homestead of-the decedent and could not be devised by will.
The opinion and judgment in the case of O’Neal v. Miller et al. 143 Fla. 171, 196 Sou. 478, is authority for the conclusion *340that the testator was at the time of his death the head of a family residing in this state.
This brings us to the question of whether or not the use of the premises precluded its being subject to the provisions of Sections 1 and 4 of Article X of our Constitution.
The record shows that the improvements on the homestead lot consisted of one apartment-house containing six (6) apartments one of which, comprising the ground floor, was occupied by the owner as his home.
The entire house was under one roof and was not divisible by a perpendicular line without destroying or eliminating a part of that occupied by the owner as his home. This condition differentiates the case from the cases of Cowdry v. Herring, 106 Fla. 567, 143 So. 433, and McEwen v. Larson, 136 Fla. 1, 185 So. 866. It is also to be differentiated from the case of State v. Gurkenheimer et al., 42 Fla. 1, 27 So. 900. In the latter case the fact that the improvement was shown to be such that it was divisible by a perpendicular line appears to be the decisive factor on which the majority holding w;as based.
We are of the opinion that the decree is without error and should be affirmed.
So ordered.
TERRELL, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
CHAPMAN, C. J., and BROWN, J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
In re Est. of Garrett Edwin van Meter v. van Meter, 214 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…So. 466; Johns v. Bowden, 1914, 68 Fla. 32, 66 So. 155, and Hussa v. Hussa, supra. It may be conceded there are a few isolated cases which seem to “water down” this principle. Brodgon v. McBride, Fla. 1954, 75 So. 2d 770; Lockhart v. Sasser, 1945, 156 Fla. 339, 22 So. 2d 763; O’Neal v. Miller, 1940, 143 Fla. 171, 196 So. 478, 129 A.L.R. 295; Marsh v. Hartley, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So. 2d 34, and Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Sauls, 1929, 98 Fla. 339, 123 So. 780. But a close analysis of these latter cases will…
-
Mrs. v. N. (Minnie Belle) Vandiver, 139 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…ll v. First Nat. Bank of Marianna (1917) 73 Fla. 1092, 75 So. 614. It is not necessary that any dependent reside with the head of the family on the homestead property. Osceola Fert. Co. v. Sauls, 98 Fla. 339, 123 So. 780 (1929); Lockhart v. Sasser, 156 Fla. 339, 22 So. 2d 763 (1945); Brogdon v. McBride, 75 So. 2d 770 (1954). But if not, the head of the family must not only be obligated to, but must actually support such dependent. Anderson v. Anderson, Fla., 44 So. 2d 652. It is not necessary that the hea…
-
Brodgon v. McBRIDE, 75 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1954)…ich the minor child is a member * * * the absence of the minor child from the father’s home is decreed by law for her welfare and is not from her intent to sever the family relation to her father.” At page 781 of 123 So. See also Lockhart v. Sasser, 156 Fla. 339, 22 So. 2d 763; Larsen v. Austin, Fla., 54 So. 2d 63. Crosby and Miller, “Our Legal Chameleon,” Vol. II, U. of Fla.Law Rev., No. 1, p. 28. The Lockhart decision, supra, is also determinative as to the nature of improvements encompassed within the h…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florence v. Cowdery, 106 Fla. 567 (Fla. 1932)
- Smith v. Guckenheimer & Sons, 42 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1900)
- McEwen v. Larson, 136 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1939)
- O'Neal v. Miller, 143 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1940)