There is presumption under Florida homestead exemption law that exemption applies.
FLA. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
McKean v. Warburton, 30 Fla. L. Weekly S613
Fla.,2005
The public policy furthered by a homestead exemption is to promote the stability and welfare of the state by securing to the householder a home, so that the homeowner and his or her heirs may live beyond the reach of financial misfortune and the demands of creditors who have given credit under such law; to that end, issues of homestead protections have been interpreted broadly by the courts. West's F.S.A. § 731.201.
Partridge v. Partridge, 790 So.2d 1280
Fla.App.4.Dist.,2001
The homestead exemption should be liberally construed in favor of protecting the family home and those whom it was designed to protect. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4(a).
Partridge v. Partridge, 790 So.2d 1280
Fla.App.4.Dist.,2001
While all exceptions to the homestead exemption should be strictly construed, such constructions are inappropriate when the exemption becomes an instrument of fraud. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4(a).
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S416
Fla.,2001
The homestead exemption is to be liberally construed in the interest of protecting the family home. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S416
Fla.,2001
Organic and statutory provisions relating to homestead exemptions should be liberally construed in the interest of the family home. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S416
Fla.,2001
A rule of strict construction applies to the exceptions from the homestead exemption. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
State, Dept. of Revenue ex rel. Vickers v. Pelsey, 779 So.2d 629
Fla.App.1.Dist.,2001
Constitutional homestead exemption from forced sale must be liberally construed. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4(a)(1).
Cross v. Strader Const. Corp., 768 So.2d 465
Fla.App.2.Dist.,2000
State law requires a strict construction of the exceptions to the homestead exemption. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4(a).
Tramel v. Stewart, 697 So.2d 821
Fla.,1997
Homestead guarantee of State Constitution must be liberally construed. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
Walker v. Mickler, 687 So.2d 1328
Fla.App.1.Dist.,1997
Laws regarding homestead exemption are to be liberally construed.
Davis v. Snyder, 681 So.2d 1191
Fla.App.2.Dist.,1996
Laws regarding homestead exemption to forced sale should be liberally construed. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4(b).
Miami Country Day School v. Bakst, 641 So.2d 467
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,1994
Courts liberally construe homestead exemption in favor of party claiming exemption and in furtherance of exemption's purpose. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4; West's F.S.A. § 222.05.
Palm Beach Sav. & Loan ****, F.S.A. v. Fishbein, 619 So.2d 267
Fla.,1993
Homestead exemption is intended to be shield, not sword.
Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56
Fla.,1992
Constitutional provision exempting homestead from forced sale must be liberally construed. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56
Fla.,1992
Constitutional provision exempting homestead from forced sale is not limited to debtor-creditor context; purpose of exemption is to protect family and to provide it with refuge from misfortune, without any requirement that misfortune arise from financial debt. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
Cain v. Cain, 549 So.2d 1161
Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1989
Homestead exemption is to be construed liberally for benefit of those whom it is designed to protect. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
In re Estate of Skuro, 467 So.2d 1098
Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1985
Homestead exemption is to be construed liberally for benefit of those whom it was designed to protect. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § 4.
M.O. Logue Sod Service, Inc. v. Logue, 422 So.2d 71
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1982
Homestead law is to be liberally construed for benefit of those whom it was designed to protect.
Hospital Affiliates of Florida, Inc. v. McElroy, 393 So.2d 25
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,1981
Homestead provisions should be construed liberally to benefit the family, but may not be used as a means of escaping honest debts. West's F.S.A. § 222.19.
Frase v. Branch, 362 So.2d 317
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1978
Provisions of homestead laws should be carried out in liberal beneficent spirit in which they are enacted; nevertheless, great care should be taken to prevent homestead laws from becoming instruments of fraud, an imposition on creditors, or means to escape honest debts.
Deem's Estate v. Shinn, 297 So.2d 611
Fla.App.4.Dist.,1974
Homestead law is to be construed liberally for the benefit of those whom it was designed to protect, those whom homesteader had legal duty to support, arising out of family relationships. West's F.S.A. § 731.27; West's F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 4(c).
In re Van Meter's Estate, 214 So.2d 639
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1968
Provisions of homestead law should be carried out in liberal and beneficent spirit in which they were enacted, but at same time great care should be taken to prevent them from becoming instruments of fraud.
Heath v. First Nat. Bank in Milton, 213 So.2d 883
Fla.App. 1 Dist.,1968
Constitutional and statutory provisions concerning homesteads should be construed liberally and in favor of homestead owners. F.S.A.Const. Art. 10, §§ 1, 4; F.S.A. § 693.03.
Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Ins., Inc., 207 So.2d 431
Fla.,1968
Constitutional homestead exemption should be liberally construed in interest of protecting family home. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Ins., Inc., 207 So.2d 431
Fla.,1968
Exceptions to constitutional homestead exemptions should be strictly construed. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Ins., Inc., 202 So.2d 610
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,1967
Constitutional provision exempting homestead from forced sale under process of any court should be interpreted in liberal spirit in interest of protecting family home. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
White v. Posick, 150 So.2d 263
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1963
Constitutional and statutory provisions with reference to homestead should be interpreted in the liberal and beneficent spirit in which they were conceived and enacted in the interest of the family home. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Schooley v. Judd, 149 So.2d 587
Fla.App.2.Dist.,1963
The constitutional and statutory provisions concerning homesteads should be interpreted in the liberal and beneficent spirit in which they were conceived. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 7.
Vandiver v. Vincent, 139 So.2d 704
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1962
Homestead laws are intended to preserve for unfortunate citizen and his family certain things necessary to entitle him to earn a livelihood and such laws should be construed liberally in interests of family and in favor of person entitled to them and they should be carried out in the beneficent spirit in which they were intended. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Vandiver v. Vincent, 139 So.2d 704
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1962
Homestead exemption laws should not be applied so as to make them an instrument of fraud, or an imposition on creditors, nor as a means to escape honest debts. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Olesky v. Nicholas, 82 So.2d 510
Fla.,1955
Homestead exemption laws should be liberally applied in the interest of the family home. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Bessemer Properties v. Gamble, 27 So.2d 832
Fla.,1946
The section of the Constitution relating to homesteads should be liberally construed. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Richards v. Byrnes, 15 So.2d 610
Fla.,1943
Homestead law should be liberally construed in interest of the family. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox, 13 So.2d 448
Fla.,1943
It is the duty of the courts, when considering statutory and organic provisions applicable to homestead exemption, to liberally construe the same in the interest of the family home, but such provisions should not be interpreted as to make them instruments of fraud or unjust impositions upon rights of creditors. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, §§ 1, 2.
Bigelow v. Dunphe, 197 So. 328
Fla.,1940
Homestead laws are founded upon considerations of public policy, their purpose being to promote the stability and welfare of the state by encouraging property ownership and independence on part of the citizens and by preserving a home where the family may be sheltered and live beyond the reach of economic misfortune. F.S.A.Const. art. 10, § 1.
Bishop v. First Old State Bank, 194 So. 488
Fla.,1940
The homestead laws must be liberally interpreted.
Kohn v. Coats, 138 So. 760
Fla.,1931
Homestead laws should be liberally interpreted.
Anderson Mill & Lumber Co. v. Clements, 134 So. 588
Fla.,1931
Homestead should be scrupulously preserved, but cannot be employed as instrument of fraud or city of refuge to escape payment of obligations. F.S.A. Const. art. 10, § 1.
Jones v. Carpenter, 106 So. 127
Fla.,1925
Homestead provisions should be liberally construed, but not made instrument of fraud or imposition on creditors.
Clark v. Cox, 85 So. 173
Fla.,1920
A liberal interpretation should be given to homestead provisions for the benefit of the family but the constitutional provisions should not be used as a means to defraud.
Hill v. First Nat. Bank, 84 So. 190
Fla.,1920
Constitutional provisions, as Const. art. 10, § 1, and statutory provisions relating to homestead exemptions, are liberally construed in the interest of the family home.
West Florida Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 77 So. 209
Fla.,1917
Constitutional or statutory homestead exemptions should be given a liberal construction in favor of the person entitled to them.
Pasco v. Harley, 75 So. 30
Fla.,1917
Provisions of Const. art. 10, § 1, and of Gen.St.1906, § 2520 et seq., relating to homestead exemptions, should be liberally construed, but not so applied as to become an instrument of fraud or imposition upon creditors.
Milton v. Milton, 58 So. 718
Fla.,1912
Organic and statutory provisions relating to homestead should be liberally construed in the interest of the family home, but should not be applied so as to make them an instrument of fraud.
| http://www.floridahomesteadservices.com |
