Se Habla Español
Lines are Available 24/7
Se Habla Español
Se Habla Español
Lines are Available 24/7
Se Habla Español
On May 29, 2026, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a critical principle of Florida estate planning: homestead protection from creditors survives transfer of the property to a revocable trust and passes to the decedent’s descendants free of unsecured creditor claims.
The opinion in Schiro v. Elliott (Estate of Sally A. Napuunoa), Case No. 2D2025-2366, was authored by Judge Silberman. The court affirmed the order of the Honorable Caroline Tesche Arkin of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which had determined that property held by the Sally A. Napuunoa Trust retained its homestead status notwithstanding the petitioner-creditors’ judgment-creditor claims.
Zoecklein Law, P.A. (attorney Marley Dodd) represented the prevailing appellee, Kim L. Elliott, as personal representative of the Estate. The decision reinforces and clarifies the relationship between Florida’s constitutional homestead protection and trust-based estate planning — an area we work in every day.
“Because the probate court correctly ruled that the property was the protected homestead of Ms. Napuunoa and that, upon her death, the homestead protection from creditors' claims, including the Schiros, inured to her three children, we affirm.”
— Silberman, J., Florida 2d DCA
The decedent, Sally A. Napuunoa, owned a residence in Hillsborough County and titled the property in her revocable trust during her lifetime. She used the property as her primary residence and qualified for homestead protection under Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.
The Schiros, who were judgment creditors of Ms. Napuunoa, filed statements of claim in the probate case after her death and moved to dismiss the personal representative’s petition seeking a homestead determination. The Schiros argued the property belonged to the Estate (not the Trust) and even if it belonged to the Trust, certain will language about debt payment authorized the property to be sold to pay creditors.
The trial court rejected both arguments and entered an order finding the property was protected homestead held by the Trust, with the constitutional protection inuring to Ms. Napuunoa’s three children. The Schiros appealed.
The Second DCA AFFIRMED. The court explained that:
| Issue | 2d DCA Holding |
|---|---|
| Trust property vs. estate property | The Schiros argued the property belonged to the Estate (subject to creditor claims), not the Trust. The court held the property belonged to the Trust based on the language of the will and trust instrument. |
| Homestead status of trust-held property | The court applied Florida’s long-standing homestead protection rule — even when title is held in a trust, the protection survives if the decedent occupied the property as homestead. |
| Homestead protection inuring to heirs | Under Article X, Section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, homestead protection from creditors inures to the heirs of the owner on death. The 2d DCA confirmed this protection applies even when the title passes through a trust to the heirs. |
| Will language about debt payment | The Schiros pointed to language in the will saying the testator had provided for payment of debts under the trust. The court found this did not override constitutional homestead protection. |
Even when real property is titled in a revocable trust, homestead protection from creditor claims survives the owner’s death and inures to the heirs under Article X, Section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution.
Florida law permits a homeowner to transfer their homestead to a revocable trust without losing protection — provided the homeowner retained the right to occupy the property and it remained their primary residence. This is settled doctrine the 2d DCA confirmed again here.
A general provision in a will referring to payment of debts from trust property cannot waive constitutional homestead protections. Heirs receive the property free of unsecured creditor claims unless the protection was clearly and expressly waived.
For Florida homeowners with children, the best practice is to clearly designate the homestead so the protection passes to children at death. Owners with children should generally avoid titling the homestead exclusively to a spouse or non-descendant, which can defeat the constitutional protection.
The decision is important for three reasons:
For attorneys, this decision will be useful precedent in any future case where a creditor seeks to reach trust-held homestead property against descendants.
The case was argued for the appellee personal representative by Marley Dodd of Zoecklein Law, P.A. in Brandon, Florida. Counsel for the appellants was Matthew C. Scarborough and Amy Lee of Scarborough Attorneys at Law in Tampa. The case was decided by Judge Silberman of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
The firm regularly handles trust and probate litigation in the Florida Second District — including Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota, and surrounding counties — and routinely briefs and argues cases at the 2d DCA.
The full opinion is available from the Florida Second District Court of Appeal (case number 2D2025-2366, decided May 29, 2026) and on CourtListener.
View Full Opinion on CourtListener →Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. The outcome of each case depends on the specific facts, applicable law, and procedural history. Every legal matter is unique, and past appellate or trial-court success in one case does not assure a comparable result in another case.
Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13(b)(2). This information is provided for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you have a specific legal question, please consult a Florida attorney about your situation.
Florida Bar No. 0085615 · Stetson Law J.D. cum laude. The firm handles trust and probate litigation in the Florida Second District (including Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Manatee counties) and statewide.