O'Brien v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

O'Brien v. Johnson

200 N.W.2d 32, 294 Minn. 482, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1435

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 21, 1972

DocketNo. 43149

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 N.W.2d 32 (O'Brien v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Brien v. Johnson, 200 N.W.2d 32, 294 Minn. 482, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1435 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Six days after our decision in O’Brien v. Johnson, 275 Minn. 305, 148 N. W. 2d 357 (1967), holding commercial property then owned and occupied in small part as a homestead by plaintiff Sadie O’Brien (mother of the other named plaintiffs) exempt from the claim of defendants (judgment creditors), Sadie O’Brien made a gift conveyance of the fee interest of the property to her four children, reserving to herself a life estate, pursuant to which she continued to occupy the property as her dwelling place. Subsequently, defendants caused a sheriff’s levy and execution sale to be made of the fee interest in the property upon the claim that such conveyance under all the circumstances of the litigation between these parties resulted or should result, in equity and justice if not as a matter of statutory interpretation, in the fee interest losing its exempt status. The trial court nullified the execution sale and we reluctantly but unavoidably affirm.

Until the legislature modifies Minn. St. c. 510, which establishes a homestead exemption, we are hopelessly committed to our decision in O’Brien v. Johnson, supra,¹ and to Minn. St. 510.07, which expressly and unambiguously authorizes an owner to convey the homestead without subjecting it to “any judgment or debt from which it was exempt in his hands.” '

Affirmed.

[483]*483Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Six days after our decision in O’Brien v. Johnson, 275 Minn. 305, 148 N. W. 2d 357 (1967), holding commercial property then owned and occupied in small part as a homestead by plaintiff Sadie O’Brien (mother of the other named plaintiffs) exempt from the claim of defendants (judgment creditors), Sadie O’Brien made a gift conveyance of the fee interest of the property to her four children, reserving to herself a life estate, pursuant to which she continued to occupy the property as her dwelling place. Subsequently, defendants caused a sheriff’s levy and execution sale to be made of the fee interest in the property upon the claim that such conveyance under all the circumstances of the litigation between these parties resulted or should result, in equity and justice if not as a matter of statutory interpretation, in the fee interest losing its exempt status. The trial court nullified the execution sale and we reluctantly but unavoidably affirm.

Until the legislature modifies Minn. St. c. 510, which establishes a homestead exemption, we are hopelessly committed to our decision in O’Brien v. Johnson, supra,¹ and to Minn. St. 510.07, which expressly and unambiguously authorizes an owner to convey the homestead without subjecting it to “any judgment or debt from which it was exempt in his hands.” '

Affirmed.

[483]*483Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 N.W.2d 32, 294 Minn. 482, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-johnson-minn-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack