Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...It is so treated in our Constitution and in our statutes. The Legislature originally would have normally and specifically included homestead property *865 had it intended such type of property to be embraced by Section F.S. 95.23, F.S.A. We held in Church v. Lee [2] that Section 5670 C.G.L. (F.S. Section 689.11, F.S.A.) is not applicable to "homestead real estate"....

...Some of the rights that are exclusive to the marriage relationship include: the right to jointly adopt (Fla.Stat. § 63.042(2)(a)); equal rights in property acquired during the marriage (Fla.Stat. § 61.075); the right to hold property as tenants by the entireties (Fla.Stat. § 689.11); the right to rehabilitative or permanent alimony in a proceeding for the dissolution of marriage (Fla.Stat....

...oin in an interspousal conveyance of the homestead to the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety. In its opinion, the district court directly construed article X, section 4(c), of the Florida Constitution, to require spouse joinder and declared section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional to the extent it would allow interspousal conveyance of the homestead without joinder....

...We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(1), and reverse. We hold that article X, section 4(c), does not require joinder in an interspousal conveyance of solely owned homestead property to the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, and find that section 689.11(1) is consistent with the constitutional provision as we construe it....

...oinder by the spouse where there is interspousal alienation of solely owned homestead property by conveyance to the spouses as a tenancy by the entirety. Our construction and interpretation of the constitutional provision is in complete harmony with section 689.11, Florida Statutes....

...him as a tenancy by the entireties without joinder by the wife as a grantor in the conveyance. [1] The result in Jameson, however, cannot be applied retroactively to affect the 1955 deed at issue in this case, see Robbins, 411 So.2d at 1025, nor can section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1987), modify the 1885 constitution....

...Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave, 79 Fla. 458, 84 So. 376 (1920). In the absence of fraud, there would have been nothing to prevent Mr. Heinselman from conveying his interest in the property to appellee free of appellants' lien prior to their divorce. See Section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1975); cf....

...The defendants concede that so long as property is held as an estate by the entireties, a judgment or lien against one spouse only cannot attach to the property. Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave, 79 Fla. 458, 84 So. 376 (1920). Defendants concede also that under Section 689.11, Florida Statutes, a conveyance by husband to wife without joinder of the wife is as valid as if the parties were unmarried....

...No challenge is made, on any ground, to the legality of the deed in 1969 which created an estate by the entireties between Charles and Josephine in his undivided half interest in the property. Such conveyances may be valid and proper to create an estate by the entirety. § 689.11(1), Fla....

...ivided one-half interest only. However, we conclude that the record, as well as the instrument of conveyance, more properly raise the question of whether or not it was the intent of the grantor to create a right of survivorship in the appellee-wife. Section 689.11, Fla....

...In this case, the judgment lien precedes the tenancy by the entireties. As such, it remains a valid and enforceable lien as to the Debtor as well as her husband inasmuch as the Debtor's husband took his entireties interest subject to the lien. See, Fla.Stat. § 689.11, cf....

...Clemons’s grant of a life estate to himself and Mrs. Clemons as tenants by the entireties was a valid conveyance. See Matthews v. McCain, 125 Fla. 840 , 170 So. 323, 325 (1936) (holding husband and wife may hold life estates as tenants by the entireties). Like the provision on the books today, section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1993), allowed conveyances of real property, including homestead property, between spouses, and did not require the grantee spouse to join in such conveyances....

...Therefore, a gratuitous conveyance of homestead property from husband to wife was held to be void, at least where there were children. Church v. Lee, 102 Fla. 478, 136 So. 242 (1931); Reed v. Fain, 145 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1962). Appellees/defendants argue that subsection 2 of Section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1977) validates the 1966 conveyance....

...The supreme court has held that a statute is "unconstitutional if it be construed in such manner as to breathe life into an instrument made and executed in contravention of constitutional inhibitions." Reed v. Fain, supra . Accordingly, we hold that Section 689.11(2) does not apply to a homestead deed which is void ab initio due to constitutional infirmities....

...were complied with. The *12 interest became vested in them when Hyman Robbins died prior to the effective date of the 1968 constitution. A statute cannot dissolve either an inchoate or vested right which is of constitutional magnitude. If we applied Section 689.11(2) as suggested by appellees, we would abrogate the constitutional protection accorded to homestead property under our prior constitution....

...It therefore seems that if the owner of a homestead and his wife cannot legally convey the homestead to the wife through the medium of third parties, it necessarily follows that homestead property cannot be conveyed directly to the wife nor so conveyed as to create an estate by the entireties between husband and wife. F.S. Section 689.11(1), F.S.A., [1] permitting creation of estates by the entireties by deed from husband to wife is inapplicable to homestead property, since it seems very clear that this statute does not, in view of article X of the 1885 Florida Constit...

...judication, it follows that the plaintiff and her former husband became tenants in common upon the entry of the divorce decree and as such entitled to partition of their respective interests. I would affirm the summary final judgment. NOTES [1] F.S. Section 689.11, F.S.A., Conveyances between husband and wife direct....

...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. 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. We do not think Section 689.11, Florida Statutes, 1941, affects the conveyance of the homestead property....

...t the conveyance from Hyman Robbins to himself and his second wife. Thus, the supreme court's opinion which construed the 1968 revision of the constitution as amended in 1972 does not control this case. In addition, we reject appellees argument that section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1981) modifies the constitutional requirements of the 1885 Constitution....

...The conveyance of the homestead by the husband without joinder by the wife was void under Art. X, §§ 1 and 4, Fla. *877 Const., F.S.A. [1] See Estep v. Herring, 154 Fla. 653, 18 So.2d 683; Jahn v. Purvis, 145 Fla. 354, 199 So. 340; Byrd v. Byrd, 73 Fla. 322, 74 So. 313; Thomas v. Craft, 55 Fla. 842, 46 So. 594. Section 689.11, Fla....

...Maness, Jacksonville, for appellant. William L. Durden of Kent, Sears, Durden & Kent, Jacksonville, for appellee. OVERTON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a decision of the First District Court of Appeal reported at 300 So.2d 33 (Fla.App. 1st 1974), which declared part of Section 689.11(1), (2), Florida Statutes (1975), unconstitutional....

...The trial court held that the deed executed by the husband purporting to convey to the wife the family home was ineffective. The wife appealed to the First District Court of Appeal contending the deed was valid even if she did not join her husband in its execution by the operation of Section 689.11(1), (2), Florida Statutes....

...The same basic requirements are in our present constitutional provision. All the cases cited in the District Court opinion concern homestead property owned solely by the head of the household. We agree with the appellant that the District Court erred in holding Section 689.11, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional....

...The decision of the trial judge, who heard and evaluated the testimony in evidence in this cause and entered an extensive order concerning the property interests of the parties, is supported by the record. The decision of the First District Court of Appeal, affirming the trial court, is approved, but its opinion holding Section 689.11(1), (2), Florida Statutes (1975), unconstitutional, is vacated....

...Sigmund, the intent of a party is not controlling in a case such as the instant one when the formal requirements regarding a conveyance of a homestead were not satisfied. Finally, we must reject appellants' argument that the void deed of 1962 is resurrected by operation of section 689.11, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, that an estate by the entirety may be created by the conveyance of the spouse holding title to both spouses. While it is true that there is no mention in section 689.11 of a requirement that both spouses must join in the conveyance, this statutory provision cannot modify the constitutional requirements of the 1885 Constitution, which governs the case before us, as noted....

...ected nothing. It conferred upon the named grantee, the wife, no right, title or interest whatever in the property... ." The appellant wife contends the deed was valid even if she did not join her husband in the execution of the deed by operation of Section 689.11(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provide: "A conveyance of real estate, including homestead, made by one spouse to the other shall convey the legal title to the grantee spouse in all cases which it would be effectual if the...

...) merely validates all deeds made without joinder of the spouse before the effective date of the act, May 25, 1971, and treats such conveyances as if the parties thereto were unmarried. Prior to the enactment of Chapter 71-54, Laws of Florida, 1971, Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., made no reference to a homestead....

the common law rule in the adoption of F.S.A. § 689.11 by permitting direct conveyances between husband

...o was fraudulent. The controlling question is whether the evidence and the findings are sufficient to subject the real property to the judgment against Jorge Baro, individually. We hold that they are not sufficient and we reverse the order appealed. Section 689.11 of the Florida Statutes authorizes a direct conveyance from a husband to himself and his wife, thereby creating an estate by the entireties....

...es in 2004 when they obtained title, because Daniel executed the deed without Milea joining in the execution. However, and contrary to the finding by the trial court, one spouse may convey to the other spouse without joinder by the other spouse. See § 689.11, Fla....

Anna Louise. The trial court erred in invoking section 689.11, Florida .Statutes (1995) to validate the 1917

...st, (c) in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. Fla. Stat. § 689.01 . The title-holding spouse of real estate, including homestead, may create a tenancy by the entirety by conveying a deed to both spouses as joint holders of title. Fla. Stat. § 689.11 (1)....

the husband’s judgment creditor pursuant to section 689.-11, Florida Statutes. The Second District Court

...2016) 10 (noting that the statute "codified the presumption judicially established in Beal Bank, and, consistent with Beal Bank's holding, the presumption does not change the required six unities"). The legislature knows how to abrogate common law unities when it wants to. Section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1971) is instructive. Section 689.11 abrogated the common law requirements of unity of time and title to create a tenancy by the entireties in real property....

...an who would then immediately transfer the property back to the original owner and his spouse as tenants by the entirety. See id. The legislature statutorily eliminated the need to use a straw man to satisfy the unities of time and title by enacting section 689.11(1)(b) which expressly provides that an estate by the entirety can be created where the spouse holding title conveys the title to both spouses....

...Foerster, 335 So.2d 810 (Fla.1976); Denham v. Sexton, 48 So.2d 416 (Fla.1950), the grantee would have to join, under the “.implied rationale” of Williams , if there was an interspousal conveyance of the grantor’s solely owned homestead property. Thus, the provision of Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977), to the contrary was declared unconstitutional....

his wife. The deed was executed pursuant to section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1961), in an effort to create

...ale or gift and, if married, may by deed transfer the title to an estate by the entirety with the spouse.” Said section clearly requires joinder of the wife where there is an attempt to alienate homestead property. However, the Legislature enacted Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes (1971), which provided as follows: “A conveyance of real estate, including homestead, made by one spouse to the other shall convey the legal title to the grantee spouse in all cases in which it would be effectual if the parties were not married, and the grantee need not execute the conveyance. An estate by the entirety may be created by the action of the spouse holding title.” Section 689.11(1), supra, appears' to negate the constitutional provision requiring joinder by the spouse and, as such, would be violative of the Constitution and unconstitutional. Such was the holding in the case of Foerster v. Foerster, 300 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). However, on appeal of that ruling to the Supreme Court it reversed the District Court and upheld the constitutionality of Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes (1971) under the factual circumstances involved in the Foerster case....