homestead claim in Kansas

1969Even before the enactment of legislation on the subject, this court, by judicial decision, held the homestead retained its exempt nature as long as members of the owner’s family continued to dwell thereon after his death (Cross v. Benson, 68 Kan. 495 , 75 Pac. 558 ); and by various statutes, culminating with K.

1969Even before the enactment of legislation on the subject, this court, by judicial decision, held the homestead retained its exempt nature as long as members of the owner’s family continued to dwell thereon after his death (Cross v. Benson, 68 Kan. 495 , 75 Pac. 558 ); and by various statutes, culminating with K.

2018In re Odo , 304 Kan. 844 , 375 P.3d 320 (2016), supports that position.

2018In re Odo , 304 Kan. 844 , 375 P.3d 320 (2016), supports that position.

1992Admittedly, padlocking of a homestead is not a forced sale, but this section is enlarged by the clause ‘and shall not be alienated without the joint consent of husband and wife.’ The word ‘alienated’ as used in our constitution means a parting with or surrendering of some interest in the homestead.” 194 Kan. at 465 .

1983In Blankenship v. Blankenship, 19 Kan. 159 (1877), the court faced a situation wherein a divorced husband objected to the trial court’s imposition of a lien on all his property to ensure his former wife’s judgment for alimony.

1947(Emphasis supplied.) See, also, Nelson v. Stocking, 154 Kan. 676 , 121 P. 2d 215 , which quotes, with approval, from the opinion in the early case of Tarrant v. Swain, 15 Kan. 146 , the following: “ ‘Where a person owns an undivided half of a certain piece of land, and resides upon and occupies the land with his family, he may acquire a homestead interest in the land, under the homestead-exemption laws of Kansas, so far as such interest does not conflict with the rights and privileges of his cotenant . . (p. 677.) (Emphasis supplied.) The rule denying the right of one cotenant to assert a home

1947(Emphasis supplied.) See, also, Nelson v. Stocking, 154 Kan. 676 , 121 P. 2d 215 , which quotes, with approval, from the opinion in the early case of Tarrant v. Swain, 15 Kan. 146 , the following: “ ‘Where a person owns an undivided half of a certain piece of land, and resides upon and occupies the land with his family, he may acquire a homestead interest in the land, under the homestead-exemption laws of Kansas, so far as such interest does not conflict with the rights and privileges of his cotenant . . (p. 677.) (Emphasis supplied.) The rule denying the right of one cotenant to assert a home

1939We do not think that a debtor being absolutely insolvent, and having his creditors pressing him for the payment of their claims, and fully cognizant of his inability to pay such debts, can, to defraud his creditors, transfer possession .of goods purchased by him upon credit and take in exchange therefor land, either in his own name or in the name of his wife, and then claim the same as exempt as a homestead against such existing creditors. ÍA party cannot turn that which is granted him for the comfort of himself and family, into an instrument of fraud.’ (Pratt v. Burr, 5 Biss. 36 ; Thompson on

1939We do not think that a debtor being absolutely insolvent, and having his creditors pressing him for the payment of their claims, and fully cognizant of his inability to pay such debts, can, to defraud his creditors, transfer possession .of goods purchased by him upon credit and take in exchange therefor land, either in his own name or in the name of his wife, and then claim the same as exempt as a homestead against such existing creditors. ÍA party cannot turn that which is granted him for the comfort of himself and family, into an instrument of fraud.’ (Pratt v. Burr, 5 Biss. 36 ; Thompson on

1939We do not think that a debtor being absolutely insolvent, and having his creditors pressing him for the payment of their claims, and fully cognizant of his inability to pay such debts, can, to defraud his creditors, transfer possession .of goods purchased by him upon credit and take in exchange therefor land, either in his own name or in the name of his wife, and then claim the same as exempt as a homestead against such existing creditors. ÍA party cannot turn that which is granted him for the comfort of himself and family, into an instrument of fraud.’ (Pratt v. Burr, 5 Biss. 36 ; Thompson on

1934(Caple v. Warburton, 125 Kan. 290, 264 Pac. 47 .) Defendant, although he made vast im provements and treated the place as his own, did not acquire such an interest as will carry the homestead privilege.

1934(Caple v. Warburton, 125 Kan. 290, 264 Pac. 47 .) Defendant, although he made vast im provements and treated the place as his own, did not acquire such an interest as will carry the homestead privilege.

1921(Bacus v. Burns et al., 48 Okla. 285 .

1920(See, also, Postlethwaite v. Edson, 102 Kan. 104 , 171 Pac. 769 .) Hence, under our decisions the homestead rule in case of the widow alone is as sacred and binding as when there are children occupying it with her.

1920(See, also, Postlethwaite v. Edson, 102 Kan. 104 , 171 Pac. 769 .) Hence, under our decisions the homestead rule in case of the widow alone is as sacred and binding as when there are children occupying it with her.

1918In Battey v. Barker, 62 Kan. 517 , 64 Pac. 79 , the court gave a narrow construction to the homestead clause, and held that the homestead'right would not persist for the benefit of an unmarried daughter of adult years who resided on a homestead with her father until his death,.he dying intestate and leaving her his sole heir and she continuing to occupy the premises as her home.

1918In Battey v. Barker, 62 Kan. 517 , 64 Pac. 79 , the court gave a narrow construction to the homestead clause, and held that the homestead'right would not persist for the benefit of an unmarried daughter of adult years who resided on a homestead with her father until his death,.he dying intestate and leaving her his sole heir and she continuing to occupy the premises as her home.

1918(Cross v. Benson, 68 Kan. 495 , 75 Pac. 558; Weaver v. Bank, 76 Kan. 540 , 94 Pac. 273 ; Sawin v. Osborn, 87 Kan. 828 , 126 Pac. 1074 .) The statute of wills provides that “any married person having no children may devise one-half of his or her property- to other persons than the husband or wife.” (Gen.

1918(Cross v. Benson, 68 Kan. 495 , 75 Pac. 558; Weaver v. Bank, 76 Kan. 540 , 94 Pac. 273 ; Sawin v. Osborn, 87 Kan. 828 , 126 Pac. 1074 .) The statute of wills provides that “any married person having no children may devise one-half of his or her property- to other persons than the husband or wife.” (Gen.

1918(Cross v. Benson, 68 Kan. 495 , 75 Pac. 558; Weaver v. Bank, 76 Kan. 540 , 94 Pac. 273 ; Sawin v. Osborn, 87 Kan. 828 , 126 Pac. 1074 .) The statute of wills provides that “any married person having no children may devise one-half of his or her property- to other persons than the husband or wife.” (Gen.

1918(Cross v. Benson, 68 Kan. 495 , 75 Pac. 558; Weaver v. Bank, 76 Kan. 540 , 94 Pac. 273 ; Sawin v. Osborn, 87 Kan. 828 , 126 Pac. 1074 .) The statute of wills provides that “any married person having no children may devise one-half of his or her property- to other persons than the husband or wife.” (Gen.

1918As was said in Voelz and wife v. Voelz and others, 88 Wis. 461 , “Our laws have thrown around the homestead every necessary protection for the humane ■ and beneficent use for which it was designed, and no such exception by which the- widow could be divested of it is found in the statute.

1917(Hogan v. Manners, 23 Kan. 551 .) In Moore v. Reaves, 15 Kan. 150 , it was held that a contract of purchase such as the one in question was sufficient to uphold the homestead right, and that when the land is actually occupied by the family the husband cannot transfer his interest even conditionally without the consent of his wife.

1917(Hogan v. Manners, 23 Kan. 551 .) In Moore v. Reaves, 15 Kan. 150 , it was held that a contract of purchase such as the one in question was sufficient to uphold the homestead right, and that when the land is actually occupied by the family the husband cannot transfer his interest even conditionally without the consent of his wife.

1904The district court instructed-the jury correctly upon the law of descent as it existed prior to 1891, and the ■case of Dayton v. Donart, 22 Kan. 256 , declares that •the title to a homestead descends in the same manner as does the title to other real estate, subject only to the right of occupancy by those entitled to the homestead privilege.

1897Morrissey v. Donahue, 32 Kan. 646 .

1885(McMahill v. McMahill, 105 Ill. 596 ; Phelps v. Phelps, 72 id. 545; McGee v. McGee, 91 id. 548.) It has been contended by plaintiffs that the minor child, having appeared in court and asked partition of the homestead, has thereby waived her right to the homestead privilege.

1885(McMahill v. McMahill, 105 Ill. 596 ; Phelps v. Phelps, 72 id. 545; McGee v. McGee, 91 id. 548.) It has been contended by plaintiffs that the minor child, having appeared in court and asked partition of the homestead, has thereby waived her right to the homestead privilege.

1875That an equitable interest in real estate, or an interest less than a freehold, will uphold a homestead interest, see McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358 ; Pelau v. DeBevard, 13 Iowa, 53 ; McCabe v. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478 ; Blue v. Blue, 38 Ill. 9 ; Conklin v. Foster, 57 Ill. 104 .

1875That an equitable interest in real estate, or an interest less than a freehold, will uphold a homestead interest, see McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358 ; Pelau v. DeBevard, 13 Iowa, 53 ; McCabe v. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478 ; Blue v. Blue, 38 Ill. 9 ; Conklin v. Foster, 57 Ill. 104 .

1875That an equitable interest in real estate, or an interest less than a freehold, will uphold a homestead interest, see McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358 ; Pelau v. DeBevard, 13 Iowa, 53 ; McCabe v. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478 ; Blue v. Blue, 38 Ill. 9 ; Conklin v. Foster, 57 Ill. 104 .

1875That an equitable interest in real estate, or an interest less than a freehold, will uphold a homestead interest, see McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358 ; Pelau v. DeBevard, 13 Iowa, 53 ; McCabe v. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478 ; Blue v. Blue, 38 Ill. 9 ; Conklin v. Foster, 57 Ill. 104 .

1875That an equitable interest in real estate, or an interest less than a freehold, will uphold a homestead interest, see McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358 ; Pelau v. DeBevard, 13 Iowa, 53 ; McCabe v. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478 ; Blue v. Blue, 38 Ill. 9 ; Conklin v. Foster, 57 Ill. 104 .