Lynch v. Stotler, 14183.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 14183.,14183. |
| Citation | 215 F.2d 776 |
| Parties | E. A. LYNCH, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estates of Margaret A. Stotler and Robert L. Stotler, Bankrupts, Appellant, v. Robert L. STOTLER and Margaret A. Stotler, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Craig, Weller & Laugharn, Herbert F. Laugharn, Thomas S. Tobin, A. J. Bumb, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Lyle M. Stevens, Long Beach, Cal., for appellee.
Before FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.
The appellees, owners and operators of the Humpty Dumpty Inn in Long Beach, upon their voluntary petitions, were adjudged bankrupts on May 5, 1952. Prior thereto in December, 1950, they had executed and recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County a Declaration of Homestead which read in its entirety as follows:
(Seal) "/s/ Edgar J. Bramble Notary Public in and for said County and State.
My commission expires November 27, 1952.
In the bankruptcies, which were consolidated, the Stotlers asserted that their real estate described in the declaration was exempt property under California law and an exemption which should be recognized as against the trustee and the bankrupts' creditors.
The trustee and the referee denied the exemption, holding the declaration too incomplete to be legally effective. Their main objection to the instrument was that Section 1263 of the California Civil Code provides, inter alia, that a declaration of homestead must contain "an estimate of their the premises actual cash value" and, so the trustee and referee said, this requirement had not been met; therefore, no valid declaration had been made.
The bankruptcy schedules reported the real estate, asserted its exemption under California law and listed the property as having no value "above the encumbrances and homestead." Nowhere in the record before this court is there any indication that the debtors have ever officially stated what the actual value is of the property itself. It does appear that two trust deeds (i. e., the encumbrances) on the property secured amounts which total about $12,800.
On review in the district court, the referee was reversed, 114 F.Supp. 301, the district court construing the document to mean that the homestead declaration could affect only so much of the property's value as was unencumbered, and it was logical to assume herein that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roquemore v. Goldstein
...is in fact exempt. Shipman v. Fitzpatrick, 350 Mo. 118, 164 S.W.2d 912; Thomas v. Speck, 47 Cal.App.2d 512, 118 P.2d 365; Lynch v. Stotler, 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 776; In re Ogilvie, 5 Am. Bankruptcy Reports, 6. Applying the foregoing law to the facts of this case it appears that Goldstein and Go......
-
Viotti v. Giomi
...estimate in a declaration renders a homestead invalid (Ashley v. Olmstead, 54 Cal. 616; Ames v. Eldred, 55 Cal. 136; Lynch v. Stotler (9 Cir. 1954) 215 F.2d 776), they have required only substantial compliance and been most liberal in approving homesteads where an estimate is entered even t......
-
Matcha v. Winn, 1
...made a declaration or she was filing for them jointly. The court held that omission was fatally defective. Finally, in Lynch v. Stotler, 215 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1954), a declarant had omitted, among other things, to state an estimate of the actual cash value of the premises. The court noted ......
-
Esten v. Cheek, 15578.
...evidence thereof in favor of a purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for a valuable consideration." 2 But cf.: Lynch v. Stotler, 9 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 776, where a declaration of homestead on California property was held invalid because it failed to state an estimate of cash value; R......