Sheehan v. First Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 22 May 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24495.,24495.
• Citation: 204 N.W. 38,163 Minn. 294
• Parties: SHEEHAN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF WASECA et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

204 N.W. 38

163 Minn. 294

SHEEHAN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF WASECA et al.

No. 24495.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 22, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Waseca County; Norman E. Peterson, Judge.

Suit by Malachi Sheehan against the First National Bank of Waseca and another. From an order of the trial court, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Leach & Leach, of Owatonna, for appellant.

Gallagher, Madden & Gallagher, of Waseca, and Meighen, Knudson & Sturtz, of Albert Lea, for respondents.

LEES, C.

This is a suit to restrain an execution sale of 80 acres of farm land in Waseca county, which plaintiff claims as his homestead.

The court made extended findings of fact, in effect as follows: The land was attached at the suit of the plaintiff bank on March 17, 1921. On November 7, 1921, judgment was entered, and in February, 1923, the execution was issued, the levy made, and the notice of sale given.

Defendant became the owner of the land in 1896, and resided on it until 1911, when he leased it to a man named Williams. Williams and his family occupied the dwelling house until the fall of 1923, but at all times plaintiff reserved a bedroom for his own use. At one time during Williams' tenancy plaintiff spent about 3 weeks on the farm when a building was erected, and at another time about 10 days when some painting was done. In other years he visited the farm once or twice and sometimes oftener. On these occasions he sometimes stayed at the house over night.

After 1911 plaintiff had an interest in a business in the city of Waseca for a number of years, and also bought live stock and shipped it to South Dakota, where he sold it. His headquarters were at Waseca, but finally he moved to Ft. Pierre, S. D., where, for several years prior to the levy of the attachment, he was engaged in buying and selling live stock. After 1911 he ceased to receive his mail at the post office which served the farm neighborhood. He voted at Waseca several times, and at the general election in 1920 applied for and received an absent voter's ballot to be cast at Ft. Pierre, but was there on election day and did not use the ballot. In 1918 he executed a bail bond as surety, and in the justification made oath that he was a resident and freeholder of South Dakota. In 1919 he signed articles of copartnership, in which he recited that he was a resident of Ft. Pierre. In the years 1919 and 1920 he executed 11 chattel mortgages in which he was described as a stockman residing in Stanley county, S. D. On March 14, 1921, he executed a deed of land in Waseca county, in which he stated that his residence was Stanley county, S. D. On March 12, 1921, he went from Waseca to South Dakota to dispose of the remainder of his herd of cattle, returning in the latter part of April with his personal effects, and he has since lived on the farm and worked for his tenant to pay for his board.

The court found specifically that prior to the levy of the attachment plaintiff abandoned his homestead and did not resume the actual occupancy thereof until after March, 1921; that he did not occupy it when the attachment was levied, and at no time filed the statutory notice claiming the land as his homestead. The conclusion of law was that the land was not exempt from levy and sale to satisfy the bank's judgment. Most of the findings are attacked on the ground that they are not supported by the evidence.

Plaintiff testified that he always intended that the farm should be his homestead, and that his stay in South Dakota was temporary and for no other purpose than to look after the cattle in which he had an interest.

It appears that the fall in the price of cattle which occurred in 1920 compelled plaintiff to go into bankruptcy in March, 1922. He included the Waseca county land in his schedule of assets and claimed it as exempt, and listed the bank's judgment in the schedule of his liabilities. In August, 1922, he obtained a discharge of his debts in the bankruptcy proceeding.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the particular finding which determined the case in the court below is to be considered largely in the light of the events which took place between the latter part of December, 1920, and March 17, 1921. At the time first metioned plaintiff came from South Dakota to Waseca county, where he spent the months of January, February, and part of March. During the greater portion of that time he visited relatives, but on several occasions he went to the farm and stayed there a number of days and nights.

If the farm was plaintiff's homestead on March 17th, it was exempt from attachment, and no lien was acquired by the levy under the writ. Beigler v. Chamberlin, 145 Minn. 104, 176 N. W. 49. To sustain his claim, it was necessary that plaintiff should prove that at some time within the period of 6 months immediately preceding March 17, 1921, he actually resided on and occupied the farm; mere possession or the right of possession not being sufficient to sustain the claim. Clark v. Dewey, 71 Minn. 108, 73 N. W. 639; Kramer v. Lamb, 84 Minn. 468, 87 N. W. 1024.

Under section 8342, G. S. 1923, the failure to file the notice for which the statute provides results in the loss of the homestead exemption if, for a period of 6 months or more, the owner ceases to occupy the dwelling house as his residence, even though he intended to return later and in the meantime kept some of his personal effects in a room in the house which he reserved for his own use. Quehl v. Peterson, 47 Minn. 13, 49 N. W. 390; Hall v. Holland, 138 Minn. 403, 165 N. W. 235.

It has always been the policy of this court to favor the preservation and retention of a debtor's right to claim a homestead; hence the rule is that,...