Opinion ID: 656121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Household Goods, Furniture, or Personal Effects

Text: 43 Finally, although this issue was not raised by the defendant either before the district court or on appeal, we consider the question of whether McNeely's Camaro is within the Act's coverage of household goods, furniture or personal effects. 13 This is a question of first impression. 14 As noted, the Act is to be liberally construed to protect those in military service. Boone. 44 In Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825 (1884), the Court held that a family's carriage was covered by the term household effects as used in the statute exempting from customs duties Books, household effects, or libraries, or parts of libraries, in use, of persons or families from foreign countries. In Hillhouse v. United States, 152 F. 163 (2d Cir.1907), the Court, relying on Arthur, held that an automobile was household effects within the then more recent statutory exemption from customs duties for Books, librarises [sic], usual and reasonable furniture, and similar household effects of persons or families from foreign countries ... not intended for any other person or persons, nor for sale. 15 We can see no substantial difference between household goods, as used in section 535(2), and household effects as used in the statute under consideration in Arthur. 16 45 We note that while the term personal effects has in some state decisions, principally will cases, been construed to exclude automobiles on the theory that the term is restricted to tangible property worn or carried about the person or having some intimate relationship to the person, Matter of Estate of Roddy, 784 P.2d 841, 843 (Col.App.1989), in other such cases the term has been held to include automobiles. See, e.g., In re Jones' Estate, 128 Misc. 244, 218 N.Y.S. 380 (N.Y.Surrogate Ct.1926) (two automobiles within the will's bequest of  'personal effects' ); In re Ginnever's Estate, 69 N.Y.S.2d 452 (N.Y.Surrogate Ct.1947) (motor boot within bequest of  'my other personal and household effects' ). The decisions go both ways and are likely not entirely reconcilable. See Ann. 30 A.L.R.3d 797 at 825-26, 836-38 (1970). 17 As has been pointed out, much depends on the context. See In re Burnside's Will, 185 Misc. 808, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829 (N.Y.Surrogate Ct.1945). 18 For this reason, the Supreme Court in Arthur observed that no material aid can be derived from decisions in regard to wills as the construction there often depends largely on the meaning of words in other provisions in the will. Id., 112 U.S. at 498, 5 S.Ct. at 243. We do note, however, that a recognized legal dictionary defines personal effects so as to include automobiles, 19 and we have so used the term in several of our opinions. 20 Certainly, the presence of the words personal effects and furniture in section 535(2) does not suggest a narrow construction for their companion phrase there household goods. 46 It appears to us that, taken together, section 535(2)'s reference to household goods, furniture, or personal effects is intended to embrace a broad category of tangible personal property held by military personnel for their personal use, as opposed to for business or investment use. 21 In this context, it is entirely appropriate to follow Arthur and Hillhouse and conclude that a soldier's personal automobile is part of his household goods for purposes of section 535(2). 22 47 We hold a soldier's personal automobile, such as McNeely's Camaro, is within the Act's coverage of household goods, furniture, or personal effects.