Lawley v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 14505. |
| Parties | LAWLEY ET AL. v. RICHARDSON ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The surviving widow of a deceased person, occupying land as a homestead under the laws of the state, is entitled, as against the heirs of decedent, to receive, collect, and use in her own right the royalties arising from oil and gas wells developed under a lease executed prior to the death of deceased, and such royalties, during the continuance of the homestead, do not constitute a trust fund for all of the heirs of decedent.
Appeal from District Court, Garvin County; W. L. Eagleton, Judge.
Suit by Anna Lawley and another against F. E. Richardson and others From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Blanton Osborn & Curtis, of Pauls Valley, for plaintiffs in error.
H. G Butts, of Pauls Valley, for defendants in error.
P. W Richardson died intestate February 22, 1922, seized of an undivided one-half interest in 80 acres of land in Garvin county. He left surviving him his wife, F. E. Richardson, and eight children. Before his death he and his wife had executed an oil and gas lease on said lands, development had been had thereon, and two or three gas wells had been brought in, and a producing oil well was brought in on the day on which he died. After his death a number of oil wells were drilled and are now producing oil. The land was occupied, during the lifetime of Mr. Richardson, as a homestead of himself and family, and since his death the widow, F. E. Richardson, and a minor son, George Richardson, have continued to use and occupy the same. Suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in error, adult children of the deceased, for an interest in the royalties accruing from the oil and gas wells on said premises. The plaintiffs in error contend that the royalties should be held as a trust fund for the benefit of all of the heirs of the deceased, with the right on the part of the widow and minor son to spend the interest on such fund so long as their homestead rights continue. The court rendered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs in error state the sole question to be determined on this appeal is as follows:
"The sole question to be determined is whether or not the surviving widow of a deceased person, occupying land as a homestead under the state laws, is entitled as against the heirs to receive and collect absolutely and in her own right the royalties arising from oil and gas wells developed under a lease executed prior to the death of said deceased, or whether said royalties constitute a trust fund of which the heirs of said decedent are beneficiaries, and the widow is entitled by virtue of said homestead right to interest on the royalties accruing during occupancy properly invested."
The homestead right of a surviving spouse is determined by section 1224, Comp. Stat. 1921, which is as follows:
"Upon the death of either husband or wife, the survivor may continue to possess and occupy the whole homestead, which shall not in any event be subject to administration proceedings, until it is otherwise disposed of according to law; and upon the death of both husband and wife the children may continue to possess and occupy the whole homestead until the youngest child becomes of age. * * *"
It is contended by the plaintiffs in error that the homestead right of the surviving spouse is not an estate in the land, and relies on the case of In re Coles' Estate, 85 Okl. 69, 205 P. 172. In that case it was determined that the homestead right of the surviving spouse was not an interest in the deceased's property, but it was not held that the homestead right is not an interest in the real estate. The language of the opinion is as follows:
The right of the surviving spouse to continue to possess and occupy the homestead is an individual right, and not an interest in the testator's property. This right is not subject to testamentary disposition, and does not pass under the decedent's will. Neither is the surviving spouse deprived of this right by virtue of an antenuptial contract which provides that the property of each shall remain their separate and individual property and that the other shall not have any interest therein."
In Hawkins v. Corbit, 83 Okl. 275, 201 P. 649, the court approved the following from Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okl. 277, 190 P. 681:
"The homestead interest is jointly vested in the husband and wife for the benefit of themselves and family, without regard to which spouse owns the title to the land; the homestead interest is a creature of the Constitution and statutes, nothing like it being known at common law; it is a special and peculiar interest in real estate; it is not a mere inchoate interest in either spouse, to become vested upon the death of the other; this joint right is paramount to the individual rights of either, and, being incapable of division and partition between husband and wife, it cleaves and adheres so closely to the title to the land itself that it cannot be dissociated therefrom by a mortgage foreclosure sale under a court decree to which either husband or wife is not a party."
It is contended by the plaintiffs in error that the right to use and occupy the homestead is similar to the right given to a child born since March 4, 1906, of an allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes under section 9 of the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 315). Reference is then made to Parker v. Riley, 250 U.S. 66, 39 S.Ct. 405, 63 L.Ed. 847, and Rogers v. Rogers (D. C.) 263 F. 160. In Parker v. Riley the owner of the land died in 1908, and the lease contract was executed in 1912 by all the heirs of the deceased, so that case does not involve the relative rights of the parties under a lease contract executed prior to the death of the owner of the land. Rogers v. Rogers did involve the rights of the surviving heirs to the royalties accruing under a lease contract executed prior to the allottee's death, and the court applied the rule which had been announced in Parker v. Riley without discussing in any manner the difference in the facts in the two cases.
Our attention is also called to the case of Barnes v Keys, 36 Okl. 6, 127 P. 261, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 178, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 515, but that case involved the right to oil produced under a lease contract executed by the owner of a life estate and the owners of the reversion. It is unnecessary for a determination of this case to attempt to accurately determine the nature of the homestead right. It is sufficient to say that, under our Constitution and statutes, the widow and minor children have the right under the homestead law to use and enjoy the premises, with the rents and profits therefrom during the time it is used and occupied as a homestead, and that the homestead occupants are not entitled to permit waste, nor to injure or to permit injury to be done to the estate of the reversion. The rights of the widow and minor children during the time the land is used and occupied as such homestead are to be determined by the same rules which have determined the rights of a life tenant. A life tenant is entitled to the full use and benefit of the property, but he is restricted in this use, so that those who are to follow him in possession shall not take the...
To continue reading
Request your trial