Utah Builders' Supply Co. v. Gardner

Decision Date15 March 1935
Docket Number5445
Citation42 P.2d 989,86 Utah 257
PartiesUTAH BUILDERS' SUPPLY CO. v. GARDNER
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County McConkie, Judge.

For former opinion, see 86 U. 250; 39 P.2d 327.

Petition denied.

O. H Matthews, of Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Thomas & Thomas, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.

FOLLAND Justice. ELIAS HANSEN, C. J., and EPHRAIM HANSON, MOFFAT, and WOLFE, JJ., concur.

OPINION

On petition for rehearing.

FOLLAND, Justice.

A decision in this case was heretofore rendered and is published in 86 Utah 250; 39 P.2d 327. In view that a petition for a rehearing has been filed, supported by rather vigorous briefs wherein it is insisted we have misconceived the meaning of certain cases cited in support of our conclusions, we deem it advisable to further express our thoughts.

Respondent has undertaken to distinguish the case of Payson Exch Sav. Bank v. Tietjen, 63 Utah 321, 225 P. 598, from the facts of the instant case. We recognize the difference. That was a suit to set aside a conveyance alleged to have been made in fraud of creditors, while this is one for foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. In that case the defendant Tietjen had available to him the defense that his property, afterwards claimed as a homestead, was at the time of his conveyance his homestead, and for that reason he had a right to convey it away with or without consideration, and such conveyance was not in fraud of creditors, since creditors would have no right to subject his homestead to the lien of their judgments. The defense of homestead would have been a complete defense to the action. Traders' Nat. Bank of Spokane v. Schorr, 20 Wash. 1, 54 P. 543, 72 Am. St. Rep. 17. Tietjen did not see fit to make such defense, and the judgment went against him. Title to the property was revested in him and the property ordered sold in satisfaction of the judgment. He set up the claim that the property was his homestead when the sheriff, armed with an execution under the order of sale, attempted to sell it in satisfaction of the judgment. This court held his claim of homestead was timely made. In that case, however, this court did not adopt or follow the doctrine of the Washington case last cited, that where the debtor, in an action to set aside a conveyance in fraud of creditors, permits judgment to be rendered subjecting his entire interest in the land to the satisfaction of the judgment without asserting his right of homestead, the judgment is final as to that issue, and the debtor cannot assert his homestead claim in any subsequent proceeding. The Tietjen Case is therefore an exception to the rule contended for by respondent, to the effect that

"a valid judgment for plaintiff is conclusive, not only as to the defenses which are set up and adjudicated, but also as to those which might have been raised, so that a defendant can neither set up such defenses in a second action between the same parties nor in a further proceeding in the same action."

The right to claim a homestead exemption is a right which the head of a family may assert to prevent sale under execution of his homestead at any time prior to the sale of the premises, unless such claim has been previously asserted and actually adjudicated against him. This is not a mere privilege conferred upon the head of a family, but an absolute right intended to secure and protect the home against creditors as a means of support to every family in the state, and the claim may be made at any time before sale or execution. Kimball v. Salisbury, 17 Utah 381, 53 P. 1037; Folsom v. Asper, 25 Utah 299, 71 P. 315. This court has previously held that an order of sale made by a court on foreclosure of a mechanic's lien is "clearly an execution sale within the meaning of the Constitution" and "it is obvious that the constitutional provision exempts a homestead from execution sale without restriction, limitation or exception of any kind. * * * When the people, through their Constitution, have spoken and have thus exempted the homestead from execution sales without exceptions of any kind,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Panagopulos v. Manning
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1937
    ... 69 P.2d 614 93 Utah 198 PANAGOPULOS v. MANNING et ux No. 5815 Supreme Court of Utah June ... Tietjen , [93 Utah 204] 63 Utah 321, 225 P. 598; ... Utah Builders' Supply Co. v. Gardner , ... 86 Utah 250, 39 P.2d 327, 329, 103 A. L ... ...
  • P.I.E. Employees Federal Credit Union v. Bass
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1988
    ...right given in Article XXII, Section 1, Panagopulos v. Manning, 93 Utah at 203, 69 P.2d at 617; Utah Builders' Supply Co. v. Gardner, 86 Utah 257, 259, 42 P.2d 989, 990 (1935), the Court in Volker-Scowcroft recognized that because Article XXII Section I is not self-executing, the Legislatur......
  • Wiles v. Wiles
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 1994
    ...creditors without any marital ties to the debtors. Panagopulos v. Manning, 93 Utah 198, 69 P.2d 614 (1937); Utah Builders' Supply Co. v. Gardner, 86 Utah 257, 42 P.2d 989 (1935); Volker-Scowcroft Lumber Co. v. Vance, 32 Utah 74, 88 P. 896 (1907).6 In support of her claim that the trial cour......
  • In re Cochran, Bankruptcy No. BK-96-11588-LN.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • January 21, 1997
    ...59 F.3d at 150 n. 1. 7 The quotation from Kelough in a footnote, referred to above, was actually a quotation from Utah Builders' Supply Co. v. Gardner, 86 Utah 257, 42 P.2d 989. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT