Title: In Re Estate of Finch

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

401 So. 2d 1308 (1981)
In re ESTATE OF John W. FINCH, Deceased.
No. 59367.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 18, 1981.
Rehearing Denied September 4, 1981.
Stephen J. McDonald of Hodges, Gossett, McDonald & Gossett, Hollywood, for petitioner.
Robert I. MacLaren, II, and Marshall O. Lloyd of Osborne & Hankins, Boca Raton, for respondent.
ADKINS, Justice.
We are asked to review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, reported at 383 So. 2d 755, which passed on the validity and the compatibility of article X, section 4(c), of the Florida Constitution, and sections 732.4015 and 732.401(1), Florida Statutes (1977), relating to the devise of homestead property. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We affirm.
*1309 The parties involved concede that the real estate in question was homestead property and that the descent of such property is governed by article X, section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution. At the time of his death, decedent, John W. Finch, was survived by his spouse and his two adult daughters, petitioner and her half-sister. His will devised his condominium in Boca Raton, Florida, to his wife, Madeline F. Finch, for life with a vested remainder interest to petitioner, Judy Lynn Finch.
Mrs. Finch, respondent herein, moved to set aside the devise as homestead real estate. Her petition alleged that the property in question was homestead, that decedent was survived by a spouse and lineal descendants, and that the property should descend as provided in section 732.401(1), Florida Statutes (1977).
Article X, section 4(c), Florida Constitution, provides as follows:
Similarly, section 732.4015, Florida Statutes (1977), states:
If a devise violates the Florida Probate Code and constitution, it descends by way of intestate succession, pursuant to section 732.401(1), Florida Statutes (1977), as follows:
The trial court considered the petition to set aside homestead and granted it over the objection of petitioner. On appeal, the district court affirmed.
Petitioner contends that the intent of the testator was to provide his wife with a life estate and the daughter of his choosing with a vested fee simple remainder interest, and that neither the statutes nor the constitution should frustrate this expressed intent. Furthermore, petitioner argues that neither the Florida Constitution, article X, section 4(c), nor section 732.4015, Florida Statutes, requires that the devise to the surviving spouse must be in fee simple absolute. We disagree with both of these contentions and adopt the position of the district court as our own. We hold, therefore:
383 So. 2d  at 757.
The opinion of the district court is approved.
We overrule the decision of the fifth district in In Re Estate of Ritz, 385 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
It is so ordered.
*1310 SUNDBERG, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.