Court Opinion

ID: 9828316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:17:18.088725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.128908
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have misconstrued our opinion herein, as appears from their motion for a rehearing, and for fear that we may not have made our meaning plain, we write this additional opinion as explanatory of the original opinion herein.
(1) We did not hold that the land allotted to the eight children must be subdivided into eight tracts. As to some of the children, the land was allotted in severalty, and, as to some, it was not. This is not complained of by appellants.
(2) We did not hold that the value of the use and occupancy of that part of the homestead set apart to Mrs. Riley as her homestead, and not included in the land that might he set apart to her in fee should be charged to her, and thereby lessen the amount to which she is entitled as owner in fee of her interest in the community estate. The surviving husband or wife is entitled to the use and occupancy of the homestead as long as it is used as such, and is not chargeable with rent therefor.
The language in our opinion herein, which has been misconstrued by counsel for Mrs. Riley, is this; “In placing the value upon *957that portion of the homestead which is allotted in fee to the other heirs, if such he the case, of course the commissioners will take into consideration that it is burdened with the homestead rights of Mrs. Riley and her children.” This is a matter that does not concern Mrs. Riley. She is entitled: First, to the use and occupancy of her homestead of 200 acres as selected by her; second, to her part of the community estate in fee, which may or may not include the homestead or a part thereof.
Our statement as above quoted was not necessary to the decision of the case as now before us, and was made only to avoid a misapprehension which might cause another appeal on the part of some of the children on the ground that partition among them was inequitable. What we meant was this: After Mrs. Riley’s portion of the land has been awarded to her in fee, if any part of the land awarded to the children of her former husband, McAllister, is included in the land awarded to her as her homestead, that fact should be taken into consideration in the partition among the McAllister heirs. To illus-strate: Suppose there is a community estate of 400 acres of land, all of equal value, if improvements be not considered. The land without improvements is worth $10 per acre, or a total of $4,000; 300 acres are improved, and the improvements are of the value of $4,000, making the total value of the entire tract $S,000. As the survivor ■ of the community, the wife would be entitled to $4,000 worth of the land. There is set aside to her in fee 150 acres, on which the improvements are worth $2,500, making the value of the 150 acres awarded to her $4,000. But there is also set aside to her use as a homestead 200 acres, including the 150 acres set aside to her in fee. Thus she would receive what she is entitled to in fee and as a homestead. There are two children, who are each entitled to equal portions of the remainder of the estate. The 50 acres included in the homestead, but not included in that portion of the land set aside to the wife in fee, has improvements upon it of the value of $1,500, making its value $2,000. The other 200-acre tract is unimproved, and is of the value of $2,000. It would be inequitable to award one of the children the 50 acres and the other the 200 acres, for the reason that the homestead right of the wife would lessen the market value of the 50 acres in proportion to her age. If she was young, the child to whom this 50 acres was awarded, or its assigns, might have to wait 50 years before coming into possession. In such case, the fact that the 50 acres was burdened with the homestead rights of the wife should be taken into consideration in apportioning the 250 acres between the children.
For the reason that we believe our former opinion herein correctly disposes of this appeal, the appellees’ motion for a rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.