Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

154 Fla. 653

18 So.2d 683

Estep v. Herring

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 30, 1944

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1944-06-30

Relies on Church v. Lee Et Vir. · Thomas v. Craft · Byrd v. Byrd

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1944-06-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1990

6 state decisions

20194419501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TERRELL, J.:

¶1 E. L. Herring and Marie Werner Herring were married in 1933. At that time, E. L. Herring owned in fee Lots 21, 22, 23,. 24, 25, and 26 in Block 112 of East King tract in the City of Pensacola, all of which were claimed and designated as his homestead. About one year after the marriage, E. L. Herring deeded direct to Marie Werner Herring Lots 21, 22, 23 and 26 of said described lands with the improvements thereon.

¶2 After the death of E. L. Herring a year or more later, Marie Werner Herring entered into contract to convey the last enumerated lots to William Estep and Dora L. Estep, his wife. The intervenors are children of E. L. Herring by a former marriage and resist the conveyance to the Esteps. *654 This suit was brought by the Esteps to require performance with their contract.

¶3 The question here turns on the validity of the deed from E. L. Herring to his wife Marie Werner Herring as to Lots 21, 22, 23, and 26, they being a portion of the homestead and the conveyance having been direct from husband to wife.

¶4 Appellants contend that the deed from Werner to his wife amounted to a severance of the lots so described from the homestead and that under Section 689.11, Florida Statutes of 1941, it then constituted a valid conveyance of the lots thus separated and conveyed. It is further contended that the homestead being divided into adjacent lots, it was competent for the husband to convey a portion of the lots to his wife for business purposes.

¶5 We do not think Section 689.11, Florida Statutes, 1941, affects the conveyance of the homestead property. The purpose of this statute was to authorize conveyance of real estate other than the homestead direct from husband to wife but as to conveyance of the homestead, Section Four, Article Ten of the Constitution is exclusive and no conveyance of any part of the homestead is valid except by deed duly executed by husband and wife when that relation exists. Thomas v. Craft, 55 Fla. 842, 46 So. 594; Byrd v. Byrd, 73 Fla. 322, 74 So. 313, and Church v. Lee, 102 Fla. 478, 136 So. 242.

¶6 Affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
/154/fla/653 · .json · Public domain