Hensley v. Fletcher

• Decision Date: 23 April 1935
• Docket Number: Case Number: 24120
• Citation: 1935 OK 458,172 Okla. 19,44 P.2d 63
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Parties: HENSLEY v. FLETCHER

1935 OK 458

44 P.2d 63

172 Okla. 19

HENSLEY v. FLETCHER

Case Number: 24120

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 23, 1935

Syllabus

¶0 1. HONMSTEAD--Question of Fact whether Land Impressed With Homestead Character.

The question as to whether or not the homestead character has been impressed upon the land claimed to be selected as a homestead, whether one tract or more than one tract, is a question of fact to be established by the party claiming the homestead right, and is to be determined by the court or jury trying the case from all the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Conclusiveness of Findings of Fact in Jury-Waived Case.

If, upon the trial of the issues of fact, a jury is waived and the cause submitted to the court, a finding of facts made by a trial court, upon conflicting testimony, will not be reversed on appeal if the testimony reasonably tends to support the judgment of the court.

3. HOMESTEAD--Husband Proper Person to Select Homestead--Wife Alone Cannot Locate Homestead on Particular Tract of Large Acreage Owned by Husband.

The husband is the proper person, under the Constitution, to select the homestead for his family, and a conveyance by the husband of his separate individual property, which has not been impressed with homestead characteristics by selection, intention, or occupancy, is valid without the signature of the wife thereto, and the wife cannot, without the approval and consent of the husband, determine that the homestead shall be located upon a particular 4-acre tract out of 328 acres owned by her husband.

Appeal from Superior Court, Seminole County; C. Guy Cutlip, Judge.

Action by Z. T. Fletcher against B. H. Hensley and Lillie Belle Hensley to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Lillie Belle Hensley, an incompetent, by her legal guardian and guardian ad litem, appeals. Affirmed.

H. H. Edwards and Tom O. Greet, for plaintiffs in error.

W. B. Toney, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This action was commenced September 2, 1931, by Z. T. Fletcher to quiet title to 40 acres, of land located in Seminole county; plaintiff's title thereto being based upon warranty deed, purportedly executed by the defendants, B. H. Hensley and Lillie Belle Hensley, husband and wife, to plaintiff, dated February 14, 1927. Objections to validity of said deed were made by answer and cross-petition by B. H. Hensley and by Lillie Belie Hensley, an incompetent person, appearing by C. H. Hensley, her legal guardian, and Allen G. Nichols, her guardian ad litem, upon grounds that said 40-acre tract constituted a portion of the homestead of said defendants, and that the signature of said Lillie Belle Hensley to said deed was a forgery. The cause was tried to lower court, without intervention of a jury, resulting in judgment for plaintiff quieting his title, and denying the cross-petition of the defendants. This appeal is perfected by defendant Lillie Belie Hensley, by her legal guardian and guardian ad litem.

¶2 The judgment of the trial court quieted and perfected plaintiff's title, and further decreed that the land herein involved was not claimed by the defendants as part of their homestead prior to the deed to plaintiff; that said premises had not been selected by said husband and had not been occupied by the husband and family as a homestead, and, therefore, it was not necessary for the defendant Lillie Belie Hensley to join her husband in the execution of the deed in question. The wife, Lillie Belie Hensley, on appeal herein, urges and briefs three general propositions for a reversal of this cause, as follows:

(1) That the property involved was a part of the homestead of the family of B. H. Hensley and Lillie Belie Hensley.

(2) That Lillie Belle Hensley was an incompetent person and did not sign the deed nor authorize her signature to be placed thereon, that her signature was a forgery.

(3) That this property being a part of the homestead, the deed is void without the signature of the defendant Lillie Belle Hensley.

¶3 The only question involved here on appeal, under said propositions and the evidence submitted to and found by the trial court, is whether a homestead was designated and selected or impressed by occupancy upon the 40-acre tract in question. It being admitted that if this 40-acre tract, from the evidence submitted, was sufficient to impress upon said land homestead characteristics, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, for it is further admitted that Lillie Belle Hensley, the wife, was an incompetent person, upon the date of the execution of the deed in question, and that her signature on said deed was a forgery; however, in this connection, the evidence shows that plaintiff was in no wise a party to obtaining the forged signature, and that he purchased said land for a valuable consideration in good faith.

¶4 We have carefully examined the record, briefs, and authorities cited, and find therefrom sufficient competent evidence to sustain the judgment of the trial court' in fact, the great preponderance of-the evidence discloses that said 40 acre tract did not constitute the statutory homestead of said defendant, upon the date of the execution of the deed in question.

¶5 The judgment of the trial court is fully sustained, as shown by the following undisputed evidence. That upon the date of the conveyance to plaintiff, the husband, B. H. Hensley, was the record owner of 288 acres of land in addition to the 40 acres sold to plaintiff; that in 1923 plaintiff purchased 80 acres of land, 40 acres of which is known as the Fletcher tract, and involved in this appeal, and 40 acres known as the Maxwell tract, ariel involved in Hensley v. Maxwell, 172 Okla. 21, 44 P.2d 60. The 40 acres are adjacent in that they cornered, but are separated by a section line. The Hensley family moved upon the Maxwell 40 in 1923, and remained there about a year. It was during this occupancy of the Maxwell tract that the wife was committed to the insane asylum at Norman. The husband and minor children thereafter moved to the town of Konawa, to which home the wife returned, upon parole from the asylum. The family then returned to the Maxwell tract and resided thereon upon the date of the deed to plaintiff. However, the evidence shows that upon the date of the deed to plaintiff, the wife had again been committed to the asylum. The evidence of defendants further showed that upon the date of the conveyance to plaintiff, they had a share...