The Florida Third District Court of Appeal ruled that a 2021 statutory amendment declaring an interest in a cooperative unit to be an interest in real property did not apply
retroactively to a decedent who died in 2017; therefore, the unit was not protected homestead property that was exempt from forced sale to satisfy a Medicaid debt owed to the state. Walters v. Agency for Healthcare Admin., No. 3D25-0817 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2026).
Enid May Townsend died intestate in August 2017, leaving her daughter, Pauline Walters, as her sole heir. Pauline petitioned for summary administration of the estate, whose only asset was Enid’s interest in a cooperative unit. Pauline proposed distributing the unit to herself as protected homestead property. The Agency for Healthcare Administration (the Agency) filed a claim against the estate to recover $81,276.76 in Medicaid benefits that Enid had received from it. Pauline then petitioned to have the unit declared Enid’s homestead under the Florida Constitution, arguing that title to the unit should pass to Pauline and the unit should be exempt from the Agency’s claim. The Agency objected, arguing that a cooperative unit was not entitled to the homestead exemption because it was not a fee simple interest in land as required by law.
In 2018, the trial court denied the petition, relying in part on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in In re Estate of Wartels, 357 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla. 1978) (holding that “a cooperative apartment may not be considered homestead property for the purpose of subjecting it to Florida Statutes regulating the descent of homestead property”). The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed but certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether Wartels still had continuing effect; in addition, it certified a conflict with a Second District decision, Geraci v. Sunstar EMS, 93 So. 3d 384 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012).
While the Florida Supreme Court case was pending, Florida’s legislature amended section 719.103(25) of the Florida Statutes to add a sentence indicating that an interest in a cooperative unit is an interest in real property. The amendment took effect on July 1, 2021. The Florida Supreme Court then discharged its jurisdiction and declined review. Pauline filed an amended petition in the trial court arguing that the unit was homestead property under section 719.103(25), as amended. The trial court upheld the order denying petition for homestead, ruling that the amendment was not remedial in nature and applied only prospectively. Pauline appealed.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal noted that, in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, a law affecting substantive rights will be presumed to apply prospectively. The court examined the homestead provisions of the Florida Constitution, which exempt qualifying homestead property owned by a natural person from forced sale under process of any court and provide that the exemption inures to the surviving spouse or heirs of the owner. Those provisions also prohibit the owner from devising the homestead if the owner is survived by a spouse or minor child. The court determined that the 2021 statutory amendment expanded the substantive rights of owners and their heirs to be free from forced sale and of the owners’ spouses and minor children to inherit, triggering the presumption against the retroactive application of the amendment.
The court found little evidence of a legislative intent to rebut the presumption. The amended statute was signed in June 2021 and provided a future effective date, and nothing in the amendment or the enacting chapter law stated that it would operate retroactively. The court acknowledged that remedial legislation, which relates to remedies or procedure rather than vested rights, is generally applied to pending cases. However, the legislature never characterized the 2021 amendment as remedial or as a clarification of existing law; to the contrary, the amendment impacted substantive rights.
The court also considered the recent controversy rule, under which an amendment enacted soon after a dispute over a statute’s meaning may be treated as a legislative interpretation of the original law rather than as a substantive change. The court acknowledged that the sequence of events, including its own prior opinion, the certified question, the Supreme Court’s acceptance of jurisdiction, and the legislature’s amendment addressing the exact issue, could support the application of the rule. However, the Florida Supreme Court had previously questioned the rule’s validity and that the Second District had rejected it. Moreover, the court determined that applying the rule would not change the result in the present case because of the substantive nature of the rights involved, the legislature’s choice of a future effective date, and the absence of any indication that the amendment was remedial or a clarification. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s order.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
