Notice of new trust-law related US S.Ct. opinion: Commentary to follow:
- US S.Ct.: Knight v. C.I.R. , --- S.Ct. ----, 2008 WL 140749 (U.S. Jan 16, 2008) (Income tax deductions for trusts and estates)
Trackbacks (0)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://www.flprobatelitigation.com/admin/trackback/56838
http://www.flprobatelitigation.com/admin/trackback/56838
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.
The quoted portion of the RPPTL Section's amicus brief is very interesting. It points out that the creditor protection for a homestead owner (Art. X, s.4(a)) which "inures" to the decedent's heirs (Art. X, s.4(b)) "has nothing to do with" the restriction on devise and descent. Philips. v. Hirshon, currently on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Philips v. Hirshon involves a certification of conflict between the Southern Walls Case, holding that Art. X, S. 4(a) protects an interest in a cooperative from creditors, and the Wartel case, holding that Art. X, s.(4)(b)'s restriciton on devise does not apply to cooperatives. As a result, we have different meanings for "homestaed" within Art. X, S.4. I am anxious to see if the Florida Supreme Court reverses Wartels or simply says there can be differing definitions of homestead based upon the different policies behind the creditor protections (s.4(a)) and restrictions on devise and descent (s.4(c)).