Griffin v. Ayers

• Citation: 231 Ala. 493,165 So. 593
• Decision Date: 30 January 1936
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 836
• Parties: GRIFFIN v. AYERS.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

165 So. 593

231 Ala. 493

GRIFFIN v. AYERS.

4 Div. 836

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 30, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; D.C. Holstead, Judge.

Bill to sell land for division among joint owners and tenants in common by Ed Griffin against Mamie Griffin Ayers and another and cross-bill by the named respondent. From a decree dismissing the original bill and granting relief on the cross-bill, complainant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

O.S Lewis, of Dothan, for appellant.

J.N Mullins and Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, all of Dothan, for appellee.

KNIGHT Justice.

Bill by appellant, Ed Griffin, for the sale of certain real property in the city of Dothan, Ala., for the purpose of effectuating a division among the alleged joint owners or tenants in common of the property.

The complainant avers in his bill that he and his brother Charlie Griffin, one of the respondents, each own an one-fourth interest in the property, and that Mamie Griffin Ayers, the other respondent, owns an one-half interest in the same.

The court on final submission decreed that neither the complainant nor his said brother had any interest in the property, and that the respondent Mamie Griffin Ayers owned the entire fee in the same, and dismissed complainant's bill.

From this decree the present appeal is prosecuted by the said Ed Griffin.

The property involved here was purchased jointly by Tom Griffin deceased, and Mamie Griffin (now Mamie Griffin Ayers) in 1918 of Ida F. Sellers and husband. Mamie Griffin was at that time the wife of the said Tom Griffin. The property is situated in the city of Dothan, and is described as the "East half of Block number 20 of the Northwestern Subdivision of the city of Dothan, Alabama, as per map recorded in Book One page 590 of the Probate Office of Houston County, Alabama, together with all improvements thereon being the east ten (10) lots of said block."

In one corner of the property there was a residence, and upon their purchase of the property, Tom Griffin and his said wife moved into this house, and continued to reside therein as their homestead until the date of the death of the husband in 1927, since which time Mamie Griffin Ayers (the widow) has continued to occupy said residence. There is no doubt but that this property, by reason of its occupancy and use, was impressed with the character of a homestead by Tom Griffin and his said wife, and it so continued up to the death of Griffin in 1927.

Tom Griffin, deceased, died without children, or descendants of any child, and his only heirs at law were and are his brothers, the said Ed Griffin and Charlie Griffin.

The property involved in this suit was all the real property owned by Tom Griffin at the time of his death, and is in area less than 160 acres, and in value, with all added improvements, less than $2,000.

In her answer and cross-bill, the respondent Mamie Griffin Ayers asserted title to the entire property insisting that she, as the widow of the said Tom Griffin, acquired, by way of homestead exemptions, his entire interest in said property in fee simple. She prays that said property, to the extent of the interest therein of said Tom Griffin, be set aside to her as homestead exemptions; the title to vest in her absolutely. This the court, by its decree, has attempted to do.

The evidence shows that after their acquisition of the property, Tom Griffin and his said wife, Mamie Griffin (now Mamie Griffin Ayers), erected four residences on said property, two abutting on Wheat street and two on Houston street; that these residences, to use the language of the agreed statement of facts, were erected "for the purpose of renting the same, and the same were rented to tenants at the time of his (Tom Griffin's) death who were in the sole occupancy of the property so rented to them as his and Mamie's tenants."

The evidence further shows that these four houses are located on lots separated by fence from the house and lot upon which the said Tom Griffin and wife resided at the time of the death of said Tom Griffin; that each of said houses has a city street number, and each is inclosed by wire fence. The houses fronting on Houston street are numbered, respectively, 902 and 904, while the two fronting on Wheat street are numbered 1005 and 1007.

We take the following from the agreed statement of facts: "Tom Griffin died intestate, having no children, and there has been no administration upon his estate; that he left as his sole surviving heirs at law Ed Griffin and Charlie Griffin, his brothers, named in this suit, and Mamie Griffin as his widow; that the only property now contended for sale is that property rented by Tom Griffin before his death and by Mamie Griffin subsequent to his death to tenants as herein stated. *** That the rents collected from this property prior to the death of Tom Griffin was used in and about the support and upkeep of himself and family."

The only question presented by the record is, Did the four houses and lots rented to tenants at the time of the death of said Tom Griffin, under the evidence, constitute a part of the homestead of said Griffin at the time of his death? If they did, the court below was correct in denying relief to complainant, and in setting aside the property to the respondent Mamie Griffin Ayers, the widow, in fee simple.

There can be no escape from the conclusion that at one time the entire property described in the bill was embraced within, and constituted, the homestead of the said Tom Griffin.

The contention made in the court below, and here earnestly renewed, is that the four residences cut off from the original homestead, and not used as a part of the homestead of said Tom Griffin, deceased, were not parts of the homestead of said decedent at the time of his death, and, therefore, could not be included in, as a part of, the homestead assigned and set off to the widow. Of course, whether these houses and lots were parts of the homestead depends largely upon "the character of the buildings, and the uses to which they were adapted and to which they were devoted." Garrett v. Jones, 95 Ala. 96, 10 So. 702; Turner v. Turner, 107 Ala. 465, 18 So. 210, 211, 54 Am.St.Rep. 110.

There can be no doubt but that by force of section 7918 of the Code the entire parcel of land, with the residence thereon, which Tom Griffin and his wife bought of Ida F. Sellers and husband may have been impressed with the character of a homestead, if it was their purpose and intention to occupy and use the entire tract as such. The fact that the property had been platted and laid off into a number of lots on paper would not of itself be sufficient to deprive the property of its character as a homestead.

When the homestead lies within the boundaries of a city or town two or more...