Court Opinion

ID: 9657542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:30:02.045496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.296724
License: Public Domain

Carter and Spencer, JJ.,
concurring in the result in part, and dissenting in part.
We concur in the result of that part of the opinion holding the purported antenuptial agreement unenforcible on the ground of fraud. It would have been better, in our opinion, to have voided the purported antenuptial agreement for failure to comply with section 30-106, R. R. S. 1943, for the reason that it was not signed by both of the parties to the proposed marriage and acknowledged in the manner required by law for the conveyance of real estate. Such is the clear holding of this court in Dorshorst v. Dorshorst, 174 Neb. 886, 120 N. W. 2d 32. By so holding, the inference that the purported ante-nuptial contract is valid except for the fraud would be avoided.
We dissent from that part of the opinion holding that the wife, under the facts as recited in the opinion, is the head of the family within the meaning of the exemption provided for in section 25-1552, R. R. S. 1943. There is but one head of a family and but one exemption allowable. The holding that the wife is the head of the family and entitled to the exemption in lieu of homestead under the facts shown is contrary to the previous holdings of this court. The mere fact that a wife makes some contribution to the family living costs, or to the husband’s personal living expenses, does not, ipso facto, make her the head of the family and entitled to the statutory exemption in lieu of homestead. In this day of working wives, whatever her contributions to family maintenance may be, a wife may, under the holding of this opinion, claim to be the head of the family or not, depending on where the interests of the parties lie. This is not the intent of the statute providing for the exemption in lieu of homestead.