Vanmeter v. Vanmeter's Assignee

• Citation: 13 S.W. 924
• Parties: VANMETER v. VANMETER'S ASSIGNEE.
• Decision Date: 14 June 1890
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

13 S.W. 924

VANMETER v. VANMETER'S ASSIGNEE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 14, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Clark county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Leeland Hathaway, for appellant.

I. N Cardwell, for appellee.

BENNETT J.

The appellant assigned all his estate to W. Miller for the equal benefit of his creditors, reserving to himself a right of homestead, etc. He owned 110 acres of land in fee, and his wife owned 150 acres of land adjoining this 110 acres; he owning a curtesy right therein which was worth more than $1,000. On this land the appellant lived, and had his homestead, at the time of the assignment. He claimed a homestead in his own tract of land, in addition to his right in his wife's land; but the court would not allot it to him, upon the ground that, as he owned a life-interest in his wife's land which was worth as much as $1,000, and as he was living on said land as a home, he could not claim a homestead in his own adjoining tract, upon which he did not live.

The object of the law ^[1] was to exempt from forced sale, etc a debtor's homestead, not exceeding $1,000 in value, to enable him to support and care for his dependent family. In this case the appellant owned two freehold estates,-- the one a life-estate, the other an estate in fee. The former he lived upon as a home, and his right to live upon it for life as a home was as absolute as was his right to live upon the latter for life. It is his right to a homestead for the support of his family, and, after his death, his widow and infant children's right, that the law contemplates. Here the appellant's right is secured during his life, and at his death the widow, in right of herself and dependent family, is entitled to a homestead. So all the rights, as appears from existing facts, that the law contemplates, are secured. The contingencies suggested that may alter these rights may never arise. It is not presumed that they will. The case must be determined by existing facts. According to these facts, the appellant's rights under the homestead law are amply secured. If we allowed ourselves to adjudicate upon the basis of what might hereafter occur, why not allow a man without a family a homestead upon the supposition that he might thereafter have one? If one's lifeestate was worth thousands of dollars, as is not unfrequently the case, which he occupied as a homestead, and he owned in fee only $1,000 worth of land...