Layson v. Riley
| Decision Date | 20 May 1918 |
| Citation | 203 S.W. 645,199 Mo.App. 453 |
| Parties | IRA W. LAYSON, Appellant, v. JOHN H. RILEY, Respondent |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. Thomas B. Allen, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Duvall & Boyd for appellant.
Charles F. Keller for respondents.
This is an action in equity to subject a certain lot in St. Joseph Missouri, to the lien of the judgment plaintiff had against defendant Riley. The defendant Mary is the daughter of Riley. The defendant prevailed in the trial court.
A judgment for $ 100, was rendered in plaintiff's favor against Riley by a justice of the peace, on the 14th of May, 1915. A few days prior to this judgment Riley, without consideration, conveyed the property to his daughter, subject to a deed of trust for $ 480, which was afterwards paid by Riley. The daughter afterwards conveyed the property back to Riley. It is conceded by plaintiff that prior to Riley's conveyance the property was his homestead, but plaintiff says that when "he conveyed it he could never claim a homestead in it again so for as plaintiff's judgment was concerned." Plaintiff further insists that when Riley "conveyed the property to his daughter subject to the deed of trust, he conveyed to her merely the equity of redemption and the land became the primary fund for the payment of the incumbrance;" and that Riley was relieved from the duty of paying the incumbrance; and that when he paid it, his act was voluntary and a fraud upon plaintiff; and that, therefore plaintiff may follow the fund into real property and have his judgment satisfied out of that property.
We find ourselves not able to understand how plaintiff's theory of his case can be allowed to affect the fact that the property was Riley's homestead and in no way subject to the payment of plaintiff's judgment.
Under the rule in this State the property, notwithstanding Riley may have fraudulently conveyed it to his daughter and afterwards received a deed back from her, was all the time his homestead. His fraud (if any) in respect to the homestead could not affect his right to claim that it was exempt from plaintiff's judgment. [Vogler v. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577, 584; Seilert v. McAnally, 223 Mo. 505, 516 122 S.W. 1064; Guinan v. Donnell, 201 Mo. 173, 212.]
Nor does the fact that defendant Riley paid off the incumbrance of $ 480 affect his homestead right. It was his privilege, without interference from plaintiff, to protect his homestead, so long, of course, as he did not increase its value over the homestead right as limited by the statute.
Plaintiff, looking to the fact that Riley had a homestead in land incumbered by a mortgage and that he conveyed the homestead to his daughter and then paid off the mortgage, with independent means, claims that he, plaintiff has a right to hold the homestead up to the amount so paid in discharge of the mortgage. He relies on the law as stated in Vandervort v. Fouse, 52 W.Va. 214, 43 S.E. 112; that if a father put valuable improvements upon land of his daughter, their value may be charged on the land by his then existing creditor, regardless of whether the father was attempting a fraud. And also as stated in People's Nat. Bank v. Loeffert, 184 Pa. 164,...
To continue reading
Request your trial