Blakeslee v. Paul, 41056.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 41056.,41056. |
| Citation | 212 Iowa 1385,238 N.W. 447 |
| Parties | BLAKESLEE v. PAUL ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Appanoose County; C. F. Wennerstrum, Judge.
Action at law to recover on a merchandise account aided by garnishment. Upon motion of the defendants, the garnishment was discharged. The plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
C. A. Baker, of Centerville, for appellant.
Valentine & Valentine, of Centerville, for appellees.
[1] Appellees, who are husband and wife, some time prior to March 18, 1931, owned and occupied a residence in Mystic, Iowa, which was incumbered by a mortgage to the extent of $107.50. On the above date there was deposited in the Iowa Trust & Savings Bank of Centerville to the credit of appellee Pauline Paul the sum of $1,393. This sum was the proceeds of insurance paid upon a fire policy taken out on the homestead. The date on which the homestead was destroyed by fire is not disclosed by the record. On March 21st, three days after the proceeds of the insurance were deposited in the bank, this action was commenced and the bank garnished as a supposed debtor of appellees. Subsequently, and in due time, appellees filed a motion to discharge the attachment upon the ground that the funds in the bank were exempt from judicial process, supporting their motion by affidavits which are not contradicted. It appears therefrom that, subsequent to the destruction of the former homestead by fire, appellees purchased another house and lot which they occupy as a homestead, for which they paid $350; that a portion of the remaining proceeds of the insurance was expended in the purchase of necessary household equipment and a single item for wearing apparel. The balance left in the bank, after making the expenditures stated, is $450. This sum exceeds the amount of appellant's claim. The affidavits further recite that it is and has at all times been the intention of appellees to invest the balance on hand in necessary improvements upon the new homestead. The improvements contemplated are the raising of the house for the purpose of putting a cement basement under the same, reshingling the roof, putting in new floors, painting outside and in, papering, and erecting a fence around the rear of the dwelling. The affidavits further recite that the value of the former homestead was at least $1,500. To entitle the debtor to have the attachment discharged on motion, he must make a clear and entirely satisfactory showing. Cox v. Allen, 91 Iowa, 462, 59 N. W. 335;Union County Inv. Co. v. Messix, 152 Iowa, 412, 132 N. W. 823;Franke v. Kelsheimer, 180 Iowa, 251, 163 N. W. 239.
[2][3][4] It is provided by statute that where there has been a change in the limits of the homestead, or a new homestead has been acquired with the proceeds of the old, the new homestead shall be exempt from judicial process to the extent in value of the old. Section 10154, Code 1927.
It is not claimed by appellant that if the entire proceeds received as insurance had been invested in a new homestead, the same would be subject to execution upon a judgment in his favor, or that if the entire proceeds of such insurance were on hand at the time of the commencement of this action, same had lost its exempt character.
The exact contention of appellant, as we understand it, is that as appellees have already acquired and paid for a new homestead, the excess of the amount thus paid loses its exempt character and becomes subject to judicial process. It is in this connection further contended by appellant that the intention of appellees to use the balance in the bank for household and living expenses is clearly shown and that the same, for this reason, may not be claimed as exempt. It has been too often held to require citation of authority that exemption laws are to be liberally construed to effectuate their purpose. It is equally well settled...
To continue reading
Request your trial