Harrod v. Farmer, 3 Div. 917
Decision Date | 01 February 1962 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 917 |
Citation | 139 So.2d 115,273 Ala. 298 |
Parties | Ora HARROD et al. v. Gertrude M. FARMER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
H. T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Montgomery, for appellants.
Hill, Hill, Stovall & Carter, Montgomery, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree overruling the demurrer of appellants (next of kin) to the petition of appellee (as widow) to set aside as her homestead land of her deceased husband in fee simple without limit as to value.
Rufus Farmer, a resident of Montgomery County, died intestate October 21, 1956. Gertrude M. Farmer, his widow, was duly appointed administratrix of the estate by decree of the Probate Court of the County. Thereafter, upon petition of the administratrix, administration of the estate was removed from the Probate Court to the Circuit Court, In Equity. After removal, appellee filed her petition to set aside homestead to her.
The petition alleges that at the time of his death decedent owned and occupied as his homestead the tract of land described in the petition being less in area than 160 acres (approximately 5 acres) and constituting all of the real estate owned by decedent at the time of his death. The petition further alleges that decedent left no children or descendants of deceased children and was not survived by either parent, and his sole and only heirs at law and next of kin are his widow, the petitioner-appellee, and two sisters, the respondents and appellants. It is further alleged that petitioner, after exhausting other assets, paid out of her own funds the remaining indebtedness owing by decedent at the time of his death, and that there are no outstanding debts owing by decedent. The prayer of the petition is that notice issue to appellants as heirs at law of decedent, and that on the hearing of the cause the court will judicially determine that the real estate described is all the real estate owned by decedent at the time of his death and is exempt to petitioner, the widow, as her homestead and will order and decree that the property has vested in petitioner in fee simple.
The proposition appellants advance as the single question involved is: 'Does the homestead of a childless, Alabama resident, dying intestate after September 19, 1953, vest in the widow absolutely, in fee simple, if it does not exceed 160 acres in size and if all debts of the estate are paid, even though said homestead exceeds the sum of $6,000.00 in value?' Appellants say that under the law of this State it does not, but that the widow may have only a life estate. Appellee contends that the widow is entitled to the property in fee by virtue of §§ 661 and 663, Title 7 of the Code as amended.
The effect of § 661 as last amended was to increase the value of the homestead from two thousand to six thousand dollars, to delete the provision for absolute vesting of title of the homestead in the widow and minor children where the estate is insolvent, and to add the following sentence:
Section 663, Title 7 of the 1940 Code was repealed by the Act of 1951, but was amended and reenacted in 1953 (Acts 1953, p. 1128). That statute now reads:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Appellants' contention is that the above quoted provision of § 661 did no more than grant a life estate in the widow and could not be made the basis for a fee simple title. The reasoning is thus summed up in the brief:
With this contention we cannot agree. Nor is it in any wise sustained by the authorities cited. In the first place, it concentrates upon the widow and makes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mordecai v. Scott
...669, Code of Alabama, 1940 (Recompiled 1958); Little v. Simmons, 222 Ala. 206, 131 So. 561 (1930) (rights of husband); Harrod v. Farmer, 273 Ala. 298, 139 So.2d 115 (1962) (rights of collateral heirs). The homestead rights of minor children in property left by their mother are superior to t......
-
Ransom v. Ransom
...social, and historical implications." For the purposes here pertinent, we believe the following language from Harrod v. Farmer, 273 Ala. 298, 139 So.2d 115 (1962), amply supports our application of the expansion As we pointed out in our recent case of Durham v. Mims, 269 Ala. 477, 114 So.2d......
-
Tyner v. Martin
...additional cases the opinion shows that the homestead did not exceed two thousand dollars in value. Complainant cites also Harod v. Farmer, 273 Ala. 298, 139 So.2d 115, wherein this court stated the question for decision as '. . . 'Does the homestead of a childless, Alabama resident, Dying ......
-
Blue Hills Land Co. v. Lee, 6 Div. 766
... ... 460(2), 119 So.2d 887; Jones, Alabama Practice and Forms, Vol. 3, §§ 9780, 9785 ... But appellee argues that the ground ... ...