513.475. Homestead defined — exempt from execution — spouses debarred from selling, when. — 1. The homestead of every person, consisting of a dwelling house and appurtenances, and the land used in connection therewith, not exceeding the value of fifteen thousand dollars, which is or shall be used by such person as a homestead, shall, together with the rents, issues and products thereof, be exempt from attachment and execution. The exemption allowed under this section shall not be allowed for more than one owner of any homestead if one owner claims the entire amount allowed under this subsection; but, if more than one owner of any homestead claims an exemption under this section, the exemption allowed to each of such owners shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the total exemption allowed under this subsection as to any one homestead.
2. Either spouse separately shall be debarred from and incapable of selling, mortgaging or alienating the homestead in any manner whatever, and every such sale, mortgage or alienation is hereby declared null and void; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the husband and wife from jointly conveying, mortgaging, alienating or in any other manner disposing of such homestead, or any part thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Rouse v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. (In Re Clark), 384 B.R. 563 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2008).
· cites it 9× “150 a conveyance of real estate by a married person without the joinder or other written express assent of the spouse is presumed to be in fraud of the spouse’s marital rights, and (2) Mo.Rev.Stat. § 513.475 prohibits a married person from unilaterally mortgaging a homestead.”
In Re White, 287 B.R. 232 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2002).
· cites it 12× “White claimed a homestead exemption under section 513.475 R.S.Mo. in the amount of $8,000.”
Sisk v. McIlroy & Assocs., 934 S.W.2d 567 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “Section 513.475 provides, in part: 1. The homestead of every person, consisting of a dwelling house and appurtenances, and the land used in connection therewith, not exceeding the value of eight thousand dollars, which is or shall be used by such person as a homestead, shall .”
In Re Schissler, 250 B.R. 697 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Loyd (“Trustee”), with respect to the Debtor’s claim of exemption pursuant to ' Mo.Rev.Stat. § 513.475 in a $5,000.00 money judgment in favor of the Debtor.”
In Re Thornton, 269 B.R. 682 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2001).
· cites it 4× “2 acres with a mobile home affixed, pursuant to section 513.475 of Missouri’s Revised Statutes.”
Meeks Leasing Co. v. Young, 881 S.W.2d 232 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “” Citing § 513.475, they specifically described and claimed as their homestead the land seized by the sheriff.”
Rubin v. Burns (In Re Burns), 73 B.R. 13 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1986).
· cites it 5× “The evidence which was then adduced demonstrated that the debtors are by will of a decedent the life tenants of a certain 231 acres of real property; that the debtors’ children have the *15 remainder interest; that the debtors claim a homestead interest in the property under the…”
Karsznia v. Kelsey, 262 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. 1953).
· cites it 6× “He had no connection with the Sheriff's sale. Riverview Gardens is a city, incorporated town or village having a population of less than 10,000 persons.”
Springfield Gen. Osteopathic Hosp. v. West, 789 S.W.2d 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Appellants’ third point avers the conveyance by Wayne and Penny of their interest in the property was not fraudulent in that such interest was exempt from execution by reason of § 513.475, RSMo 1986, the “homestead” exemption.”
State v. Haney, 277 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. 1955).
· cites it 3× “In our opinion, the judgment as evidenced by the judge’s docket entry, when considered in connection with the whole record, is sufficiently definite as to parties and amount to support the execution against appellant’s property. Appellant contends that the premises in question…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.475(1) — 13 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.475(2) — 1 case
Rouse v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. (In Re Clark), 384 B.R. 563 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2008).
“150 a conveyance of real estate by a married person without the joinder or other written express assent of the spouse is presumed to be in fraud of the spouse’s marital rights, and (2) Mo.Rev.Stat. § 513.475 prohibits a married person from unilaterally mortgaging a homestead.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.