Farmers Co-op. Ass'n v. Stevens, 76--172

• Decision Date: 13 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76--172,76--172
• Citation: 260 Ark. 735,543 S.W.2d 920
• Parties: FARMERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION INC., an Arkansas Corporation, Appellant, v. W. F. STEVENS, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 920

543 S.W.2d 920

260 Ark. 735

FARMERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION INC., an Arkansas Corporation, Appellant, v. W. F. STEVENS, Appellee.

No. 76--172.

Supreme Court of Arkansas, In Banc.

Dec. 13, 1976.

J. L. Hendren, Bentonville, for appellant.

Burrow & Sawyer, Bentonville, for appellee.

HARRIS, Chief Justice.

This litigation relates to the nature of a homestead exemption claimed by W. F. Stevens relative to land located within the limits of the incorporated town of Little Flock. Stevens contended, and the trial court held, that the land qualified for a rural homestead exemption under Article 9, Section 4, of the State Constitution. Appellant, Farmers Cooperative Association, Inc., asserts that said land qualifies only for an urban homestead exemption under Article 9, Section 5 of the Constitution. Appellant recovered a judgment against appellee in the amount of $10,800.85 plus interest and, in the face of an execution, appellee contended that his 20 acres of real property were entirely exempt from execution because of being a rural homestead. Appellant asserted that Stevens was only entitled to the urban homestead exemption, constituting no more than one acre. From the judgment entered by the trial court comes this appeal.

The proof establishes that the 20-acre tract claimed to be exempt is used as defendant's home and exclusively for agricultural purposes. Stevens in engaged in the business of selling eggs, boarding horses, and hiring himself out to other farmers to operate tractors and other farm work. Little Flock, though incorporated, contains no schools, no service stations, no industry, no motels, and the town property is zoned as agricultural. The record does not reflect that any municipal services are afforded except water, which is provided by a rural cooperative. The property was in an unincorporated area when acquired by appellee, and actually it appears that the incorporation was effected to prevent the cities of Rogers and Bentonville from annexing it.

It is apparent from our cases, though facts are different in all, that in doubtful cases, the use made of the property is very much pertinent to the question of whether a homestead is urban or rural; actually it would appear that each case stands on its own facts. In Spaulding v. Haley, 101 Ark. 296, 142 S.W. 172, the court said:

'The testimony in the case establishes the fact that Kingsville was a small village, probably within the meaning of the constitutional provision with reference to homesteads. But it also shows that the whole of the property which the court allotted to the widow as a homestead was farm property, and that it jutted into the outskirts of the village. Some of the witnesses testify that it was not a town or village but merely an aggregation of houses occupied by a few families as a part of their several farms under circumstances like unto the facts with reference to the property of Spaulding. The chancellor found that this property was used entirely for agricultural purposes, and that it therefore constituted a rural, and not an urban, homestead. We can not say that this finding is against the preponderance of the testimony.'

In Orr v. Doughty, 51 Ark. 527, 11 S.W. 875, we said:

'The tract had never been surveyed into blocks and lots or dedicated to village uses. It has been and is now used for agricultural purposes in connection with defendant's contiguous farm, and is therefore a country homestead within the meaning of the constitution, notwithstanding the land upon which the defendant's residence is situated juts into the village.'

In Stuckey v. Horn, 132 Ark. 357, 200 S.W. 1025, the testimony reflected that the land in question was situated adjacent to a village (never incorporated) once known as Perrysmith, but later known as Bauxite. It was the site of a school with an enrollment of about 600 pupils, and there were two churches, ¹ a bank, a drugstore, two mercantile houses, a barbershop, a butcher shop, and a number of residences. About 3,000 people lived on various parts of the lands in the community and principal employment was labor performed for the Bauxite Company. The court said:

'The case of Spaulding v. Haley, 101 Ark. 296, 142 S.W. 172, presented a very similar question under the facts of that case, and in the syllabus there it is said:

'Where land jutted into the outskirts of a village, but was used entirely for agricultural purposes, although part of it had been divided into lots by a prior owner, without making a plat or subdivision of it, a finding of the chancellor that it constituted a rural, and not an urban, homestead, will not...