Hartwell v. Blasingame

584 So. 2d 6, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 510, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1239, 1991 WL 155130
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedAugust 15, 1991
DocketNo. 76431
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 584 So. 2d 6 (Hartwell v. Blasingame) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartwell v. Blasingame, 584 So. 2d 6, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 510, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1239, 1991 WL 155130 (Fla. 1991).

Opinion

HARDING, Justice.

We have for review Hartwell v. Blasingame, 564 So.2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), in which the Second District Court of Appeal construed article X, section 4, Florida Constitution.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Based upon our recent decision in City National Bank v. Tescher, 578 So.2d 701 (Fla.1991), we approve the decision below.

In Tescher, we held that “when a decedent is survived by no minor children and the surviving spouse has waived homestead rights, there is no constitutional restriction on devising homestead property.” Id. at 703.

The facts of the instant case are virtually identical to those presented in Tescher. Here, Ruth Jurmu Hartwell, an adult child, appealed an order entered in the probate of the estate of Reino Wilho Jurmu, her father. The order denied the homestead status of a house that Jurmu devised to Harold Smith, Hartwell’s former husband. Jurmu’s surviving spouse had validly waived her constitutional homestead rights in a prenuptial agreement. However, Hartwell claimed that the spouse’s waiver was not binding on her as a statutory heir and lineal descendant of Jurmu, and, thus, the devise was in violation of article X, section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution.

On appeal, the district court held that Hartwell was not entitled to seek the protection of this constitutional provision, as she fell into neither of the classes which the provision is intended to protect (surviving spouses and minor children). Accordingly, the court held that the devise was valid under the Florida Constitution and Florida statutory law. Hartwell, 564 So.2d at 546.

[7]*7Based upon the holding in Tescher, we approve the decision of the district court of appeal in Hartwell.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dr. Ross G. Stone v. Nancy Stone and Alma Stone
157 So. 3d 295 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Chames v. DeMayo
972 So. 2d 850 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Amend. to Regulating Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5
939 So. 2d 1032 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Jones v. Estate of Jones
2002 WI 61 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2002)
Goddard v. Bacon
611 So. 2d 80 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
584 So. 2d 6, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 510, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1239, 1991 WL 155130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartwell-v-blasingame-fla-1991.