Court Opinion

ID: 9830086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:51:45.684348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:12.409310
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing the appellee insists that he should be ¿Rowed a foreclosure on all of the land undertaken to be passed by the deed to J. O. Stiles on November 30, 1920, such conveyance being fraudulent as to creditors, as determined by the jury. Aside from the precise propositions relied on in the motion, we have reached the conclusion* upon a reconsideration of the evidence, that we erred in deciding that the judgment of the trial court should be modified so as to allow the appellant bank a foreclosure of its lien in priority of appellee’s lien on a part of the land to the extent of 200 acres. The judgment should be affirmed instead of modified as previously determined.
The appellant bank proved that a part of the 656-acre tract of land was occupied as a homestead by L. W. Ward and his family at the time of the conveyance to J. O. Stiles, and that it had been his homestead continuously for 30 years. But there is no evidence as to what part of the land was occupied or used by E. W. Ward as homestead. And the facts do not show that L. W. Ward had made any statutory designation of homestead in the land, or had made selection of any defined 200 acres before the conveyance to J. 0. Stiles, or that selection of such exemption was made in the conveyance to J. C. Stiles. The facts stand simply in this way: That L. W. Ward, entitled to a homestead claim, and having more land tha’n is exempt by the law, conveyed the entire tract in fraud of his creditors, as determined by the jury, and made no claim of his exemption out of the whole, by designation, selection, or otherwise. The bank was the holder of vendor’s lien notes against the whole tract, and' not against certain premises selected or defined as the homestead of ,B. W. Ward. If the bank had the right, as a lienholder, to assert, as against a judgment lienholder, that a part of the land constituted a homestead, and that the judgment lien did not attach to the homestead, the bank has nevertheless failed to put the court in a position to separate the exempt from the nonexempt property. The burden of proof was upon the bank, in the circumstances, to prove, as a part of its affirmative defense, not only that a part of the land was exempt as a homestead at the time of the conveyance to J. O. Stiles, but what part of the land was the homestead at the time. The bank was seeking affirmative relief- in that respect, that it was entitled to at least priority in certain premises to the extent of 200 acres as homestead of L. W. Ward. The appellee, a judgment creditor, was hot. called upon to negative homestead exemption or identify the part of the tract that was homestead. And the court, in the circumstances, cannot make the selection of a homestead out of the larger tract for L. W. Ward, in the absence of proof of some designation or selection of a particular part of the land by L. W. Ward. For the right of making designation or selection rested primarily in L. W. Ward, the head Of a family. And a creditor or lien-holder cannot set up the claim to a particular part of the tract as homestead except in right of a designation or selection by the homesteader, existing at the time of the conveyance. If the bank had shown that L. W. Ward had made.a statutory designation, or had made a selection in the deed to J. O. Stiles, or that a particular part of the land was used and occupied as a homestead, or if the conveyance to J. O. Stiles had been only for a tract consisting of 200 acres or less, then in either event a designation or selection of the homestead by the person legally authorized to do so, and entitled to make the selection, would be apparent and proven. The bank then would be lidding a lien on certain defined premises as a homestead and could assert the *1057claim as .well as the selection of homestead in defense of its legai rights thereunder.
We do not think that reversible error is shown in the record. The judgment heretofore rendered by this court is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.