Johnson v. Johnson

NOURSE, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment rendered against her in an action to quiet title, tried upon an agreed statement of facts.

The sole question to he determined in this action is the validity of a homestead declared upon property held in joint tenancy. At the time of the declaration of homestead plaintiff and his wife, Minnie Johnson, were the owners of the property in controversy in this action, holding the title thereto as joint tenants. Their son, Chester Johnson, who was also defendant’s husband, had an interest in the property to the extent of seven hundred dollars, which he had paid on the purchase price of $5,200. Defendant and Chester Johnson resided upon the property and were in the exclusive possession thereof from about the time of its purchase, on August 25, 1915, until February 24, 1916, at which time Chester Johnson left defendant and went to live with his parents in Pasadena. On May 26, 1916, defendant filed her declaration of homestead upon the property. Thereafter, and on April 19, 1917, Joseph and Minnie Johnson, by grant deed, conveyed the property to Chester Johnson, and on the same day he reconveyed the property by grant deed to his parents. These deeds were recorded June 25, 1917, in the order in which they were executed.

[1]

That a homestead in this state cannot be declared on property held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common has been established by a long line of decisions. But a statute adopted by the legislature in 1868 (Stats. 1867-68, p. 116) enlarged the scope of the homestead law so that whenever a party entitled to a homestead under the laws of the state is in exclusive occupation of a tract of land, having the same inclosed, and shall select and record and reside upon the same as a homestead, he shall be entitled to such homestead, although such, land be held in joint tenancy, or tenancy in common, or such claimant own only an undivided interest therein. Defendant claims that, under the provisions of this statute, she was entitled to declare a homestead

[435]

upon the property in suit, regardless of the fact that her husband had only about a one-eighth interest in the property held by his father and mother jointly.

This precise question was very recently passed upon by the supreme court in the