Buckles v. Matson
| Decision Date | 17 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | 31096 |
| Citation | 159 N.W. 1007,178 Iowa 310 |
| Parties | ORA J. BUCKLES, Appellant, v. ELLA MATSON et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lee District Court.--H. BANK, JR., Judge.
THIS case involves the homestead right in a certain two-story brick building. On the death of the owner, the widow elected to take her homestead right in lieu of her distributive share. The question here is whether a portion of this building was in fact a homestead, and passed to her under election. The opinion states the facts. Decree below established a homestead right in the entire building in favor of the defendant, the widow. From this, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
T. B Snyder, for appellant.
E. C Weber, for appellee.
On April 15, 1912, C. D. Matson died, owning parts of two lots in the city of Fort Madison, on which is situated a two-story brick building, with a frontage on Pine Street of about 20 feet, and extending back about 50 feet, to an alley. Under this building, as constructed and used, is a cellar. From Pine Street, there are two doors, one serving as an entrance to the first floor, the other serving as an entrance to an approach to a stairway leading to the second floor. After entering from Pine Street, through the doorway leading to the approach to the stairway, there is another door, through which entrance can be made to the room on the first floor. The cellar is entered from the first floor by means of a trapdoor. In the rear is also a door through which exit and entrance may be made to the first floor. An enclosed stairway leads into the back part of the upper floor of the building. The first floor is partitioned. The partition is not solid, but extends up part way to the ceiling. The trapdoor, through which entrance to the cellar is made, is back of this frame partition. At the time of the trial, there was no outside cellar door, though there seems to have been one leading from the alley into the cellar. This was subsequently closed by the city. There is a well in the cellar, and a pump on the first floor, through which water is taken for use in the building. The outside cellarway was closed, after the death of Mr. Matson.
The defendant is the widow of decedent, and administratrix of his estate. The plaintiffs are his children. The question here involves the extent to which the defendant widow is entitled to the occupancy of this building as a homestead. She elected to avail herself of her homestead rights, in lieu of dower. Sometime in April, 1910, C. D. Matson purchased this property, and, with his wife, took immediate possession. They opened a restaurant on the first floor. The parlor and bedrooms were on the second floor. There are four rooms upstairs. After taking possession, the deceased and his wife occupied the building until his death. When they moved, it seems they had household furniture, tables, counters, stove, and cooking utensils, and they were placed on the floor in the rear, back of the partition. The beds, bedding and parlor furniture were placed upstairs. They slept upstairs, and ate their meals downstairs. A lunch counter was placed on the south side of the first floor, at which customers were served. There was a well in the cellar, from which they used the water for cooking. All their provisions were kept in the cellar, and were reached through the inside trapdoor. In this cellar were kept all kinds of vegetables for use, not only for the family, but in the conduct of the restaurant. There was also an icebox in the cellar, which was used during the life of the deceased and while the restaurant was being conducted. The defendant did the work in the restaurant, and the deceased superintended the business.
During the time Mr. Matson lived, this restaurant was conducted under his management, with the assistance of his wife. When the restaurant was closed, they retired upstairs through this side door in the first floor. All the cooking for the family, as well as for the boarders was done downstairs. Back of this partition, deceased and his wife ate their meals. There was no way of reaching this pump that brought the water from the cellar, except from the first floor. The water from this well was, and is still, used for cooking purposes. It seems that there is city water on the second floor, but it cannot be used for cooking purposes. To get water from this well, it was necessary to go below to the first floor, either through the rear or side door leading from the hallway.
As said before, C. D. Matson died on April 15, 1912. His widow filed her election to take homestead in lieu of dower on July 13, 1912. She continued to run the restaurant and occupy the building, in the same manner in which it was occupied by her and her husband, until the latter part of October, 1913. The front part of the building was then vacant until about January. She then rented the front part to one Mr. Ball for about six months, for a shoe and repair shop, at $ 15 a month. In August, 1914, she rented the front part to one Mr. Johnson for a cigar business. Mr. Johnson was occupying the portion in front of the partition on the first floor with a cigar business, at the time the case was tried. The defendant, the widow, was living upstairs.
The evidence further discloses that, while there was city water upstairs, the defendant widow has been using water for cooking purposes taken from this well in the basement. It further discloses that she has never rented any portion of the building except the front part of the first story; that, in order to reach this well, she must proceed down the stairway from the upper story, into the hallway, through this door, into the front part of the building, and then back to the rear of the first floor; that she has been in the habit of doing this. We infer that the use of this water is necessary for cooking purposes.
Mr. Johnson, who occupies the front part of the first floor with a cigar business, testifies:
She testifies that she used this water for cooking purposes; that the city water upstairs cannot be used; that, to get this water from the well, she had to go below, pass through the part occupied by Mr. Johnson, to the rear; that, to do this, she had to either enter by the rear door or front door or side door from the hallway.
This statement of the facts, as they appear in the record, may not convey a very intelligent idea of the manner in which this building was constructed and used, to one who is not familiar with the entire record, but we think sufficient of the facts are stated to enable one to understand the controversy here, and the law applicable to the controversy. This is not a controversy between debtor and creditor, in which a creditor is seeking to hold a portion of this building as not exempt from execution under the homestead law, nor seeking to claim that, though a homestead at one time, it has been abandoned, and, therefore, subject to execution. So the case is not considered from this viewpoint.
It is apparent from this record that this building was occupied as a home by C. D. Matson and his wife up to the time of his death. The mere fact that they served guests in the front part of the lower floor of the building does not destroy the homestead character of the building. The homestead character having once attached, is presumed to continue until the contrary appears. When a building has once become impressed with a homestead character, one who seeks to deprive it of that character has a burden of showing that it has been abandoned as a home. Ordinarily, actual occupancy of the building...
To continue reading
Request your trial