State v. Haney
1955 Mo. LEXIS 619, 55 A.L.R. 2d 717, 277 S.W.2d 632 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify as a "head of a family" for the purpose of claiming a homestead exemption, a person must have a legal or moral obligation to support other members of the household who are at least partially dependent on them, and the family relationship must be of a permanent and domestic character, not merely a temporary arrangement.
Facts:
- Jess Haney was charged with grand larceny and released on a $4,000 bond.
- Lillian Haney, his mother, and Phyllis M. Haney, his wife, executed the bond as sureties, pledging to pay the sum if Jess Haney failed to appear in court.
- Jess Haney subsequently failed to appear for his court date.
- Lillian Haney had previously purchased a farm property in 1951 with the stated intention of making it her home.
- She rented the farmhouse to tenants but reserved an upstairs room for her own use, where she stayed intermittently.
- Most of the time, Lillian Haney lived at her other son's farm.
- After Jess Haney's disappearance, his wife Phyllis and their three children sometimes stayed with Lillian Haney in the reserved room.
- Phyllis M. Haney received public assistance ('child aid') to support her children.
Procedural Posture:
- The recognizance of defendant Jess L. Haney was forfeited in the Texas County Circuit Court.
- A writ of scire facias was issued against sureties Lillian Haney and Phyllis M. Haney.
- A default judgment for $4,000 was entered against Jess Haney and the sureties.
- A writ of execution was issued, and the sheriff levied on real estate owned by Lillian Haney.
- Lillian Haney filed a motion to quash the execution in the circuit court, arguing the property was exempt as her homestead.
- The Texas County Circuit Court overruled the motion to quash the execution.
- Lillian Haney (appellant) appealed the circuit court's order to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner qualify as a 'head of a family' entitled to a homestead exemption by providing intermittent lodging and some support to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren, when the living arrangement is not permanent and she is not their primary source of support?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Special Judge
No. A property owner does not qualify as a 'head of a family' for homestead exemption purposes under these circumstances. To constitute a 'family' under the homestead laws, there must be two or more people residing together permanently under one head, a legal or moral obligation on that head to support the other members, and a state of dependency by those being supported. Here, the evidence showed that Lillian Haney was not the head of a family in a permanent, domestic sense. Her daughter-in-law and grandchildren did not live with her permanently, and any support was partial and supplementary to public aid. The living arrangement was a temporary expedient rather than a bona fide family unit, thus she did not meet the burden of proving her status as a 'housekeeper' or 'head of a family' entitled to the exemption.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the definition of 'head of a family' for the purpose of Missouri's homestead exemption statute, emphasizing the requirement of a permanent, domestic relationship over temporary arrangements. The decision establishes that merely providing intermittent shelter and partial support to relatives is insufficient to create the family unit necessary to claim the exemption. Future courts will look for evidence of a bona fide, stable household with a clear dynamic of support and dependency, rather than just the declaration of intent or temporary cohabitation, when evaluating homestead claims.
