Opinion ID: 1590563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Amendment to Article X, Section 4

Text: Chames primarily argues that a 1985 amendment to article X, section 4, which replaced the phrase the head of a family with a natural person, changed the purpose of the' homestead exemption from one protecting the family into a personal right that may be waived. We can find no such intent. Before the amendment, the homestead exemption was limited to persons who qualified as the head of a family. See art. X, § 4(a), Fla. Const. (1972). This required a showing of either (1) a legal duty to support which arises out of a family relationship, or (2) continuing communal living by at least two individuals under such circumstances that one is regarded as in charge. Holden v. Estate of Gardner, 420 So.2d 1082, 1083 (Fla.1982). In 1984, Florida voters approved an amendment changing the phrase the head of a family to a natural person. We addressed the amendment in Lopez, where we noted that the homestead exemption formerly only enjoyed by a head of a family can now be enjoyed by any natural person. 531 So.2d at 951. We recognized that the amendment expanded the class of persons who can take advantage of the homestead provision and its protections. Id. at 948. We find no indication, however, that in expanding the homestead protection, Florida voters also intended to alter its fundamental purpose. The ballot summary on which the people voted stated: EXEMPTION OF HOMESTEAD AND PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM FORCED SALEProvides that the exemption of a homestead and of personal property to the value of $1,000 from forced sale and certain liens shall extend to any natural person, not just the head of a family. Fla. HJR 40 (1983) at 2 (proposed amendment to art. X, § 4(a)). We cannot agree that in expanding the homestead exemption from protecting families to protecting all individuals, the voters also intended to approve a waiver of that right. Finally, the conclusion that this amendment changed the purpose of the homestead protection to one solely for the benefit of the homeowner is inconsistent with cases recognizing, even after the amendment, that the exemption's purpose is to protect the family, see Havoco, 790 So.2d at 1020, and it would ignore the State's interest in protecting the home, see Lopez, 531 So.2d at 948. Cf. Slatcoff v. Dezen, 76 So.2d 792, 794 (Fla.1954) (Appellant concentrates throughout upon the interest of debtor and creditor exclusively. What she overlooks is the interest of the State in its exemption laws, to the end that owners of exempt property and their families shall not be reduced to absolute destitution, thus becoming a charge upon the public.). For these reasons, we find the amendment to the homestead exemption a slim reed on which to recede from 123 years of precedent.