Laurie v. Crouch

• Decision Date: 28 February 1914
• Citation: 139 P. 304,41 Okla. 589,1914 OK 91
• Parties: LAURIE ET AL. v. CROUCH ET UX.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

139 P. 304

41 Okla. 589, 1914 OK 91

LAURIE ET AL. v. CROUCH ET UX.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

February 28, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

The bare intention to create a home on a vacant lot at some future time, unaccompanied with actual occupancy of the lot is not sufficient foundation upon which to base a claim of homestead exemption against an execution.

Where there is a fixed intention by the owner of a lot to presently occupy it as a home, accompanied with overt acts, which clearly manifest such intention, such as fitting up building, or repairing a house thereon for occupancy followed by actually moving therein, without unreasonably delay, it might have the effect, at least in equity, of impressing the homestead character, so as to render the property exempt as against claims arising prior to actual occupancy by the family.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Tillman County; J. T. Johnson, Judge.

Action by J. H. Crouch and wife against A. J. Laurie and another for injunction. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Wilson & Roe, of Frederick, and W. E. Lindblad, of Grandfield, for plaintiffs in error.

Hudson & Mounts and H. P. McGuire, all of Frederick, for defendants in error.

BREWER C.

On March 2, 1911, the district court of Tillman county made an order permanently enjoining the plaintiffs in error from selling, under execution, lots 11 and 12, block 28, Doneghy addition to the town of Grandfield, on a petition filed by J H. Crouch et al., based on the claim that such lots comprised his homestead. This appeal is prosecuted to have this final order come under review. The defendants in error, Crouch et al., plaintiffs in the court below, have filed no brief. The only question necessary for us to pass upon is whether the court was justified, under the evidence, in holding that the lots in controversy had been impressed with the homestead character. If so, the order should stand. If not, it should be set aside.

From the abstract of the evidence, it appears that Crouch, who was a physician, bought five vacant lots, built a cheap stable or shed on two of them, in which he kept his horse for a time; that he contracted for them in 1909, and procured full title January 8, 1910; that he sold three of the lots, and paid the proceeds on the five bought. There was no dwelling house on any of the lots, nor were they at any time occupied by Crouch and wife as a home. Crouch however testified that, when he bought them, he intended at some future time to build a home on them. There is evidence that he tried to sell the two lots involved here, and at one time had a notice that they were for sale posted on the lots. The execution was levied on the lots on February 11, 1910, and was for the satisfaction of a judgment against Crouch and in favor of Laurie. Carter made the levy as sheriff, and is only concerned here in his official capacity.

Will the naked intention to build a house on vacant lots at some indefinite future time for use as a homestead be sufficient to exempt such lots from execution? We think not. The statute relating to homestead exemptions in force prior to statehood was construed by the territorial Supreme Court in Ball v Houston et al., 11 Okl. 233, 66 P. 358. The syllabus is: "For the purpose of its creation or inception, the occupancy must be actual, but when the premises have become invested with the homestead character, and the homestead has been once acquired, a constructive occupancy may be sufficient to retain it, and it will not be lost by a temporary absence with no intention of abandonment. The statute exempts only the homestead in fact, the place of the home,...