Also known as: homestalls · homestead
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A historical term for the homestead, consisting of the family home and its immediately surrounding curtilage. The term identifies the protected family residence and adjacent land.
Holly Hayes and her husband signed a written agreement before marriage in which she waived all rights to homestead allowance. After his death, Holly sought to claim the homestall allowance from the estate. The probate court enforced the waiver because it was a signed writing under the governing statute.
Hiroshi Hasegawa inherited a constitutional life estate in the family homestall. He petitioned for the statutory homestead allowance from other estate assets. The court reduced the allowance by the value of the constitutional interest in the homestall.
Henry Harrison was convicted of intentionally killing his spouse. He claimed the homestall allowance from her estate. The court denied the claim because the slayer statute forfeits all homestead benefits to the killer.
Officers walked onto the front porch of Harper Hill's homestall with a drug dog without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the porch formed part of the homestall curtilage protected by the Fourth Amendment.
In 2006, Detective William Pedraja of the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of respondent Joelis Jardines. One month later, the Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a joint surveillance team to Jardines' home. Detective Pedraja watched the home for fifteen minutes and saw no vehicles in the driveway or activity around the home, and could not see inside because the blinds were drawn. Detective Pedraja then approached Jardines' home accompanied by Detective Douglas Bartelt, a trained canine handler who had just arrived at the scene with his drug-sniffing dog. The dog was trained to detect the scent of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and several other drugs, indicating the presence of any of these substances through particular behavioral changes recognizable by his handler. Detective Bartelt had the dog on a six-foot leash, owing in part to the dog's wild nature and tendency to dart around erratically while searching. As the dog approached Jardines' front porch, he apparently sensed one of the odors he had been trained to detect, and began energetically exploring the area for the strongest point source of that odor by tracking back and forth. After sniffing the base of the front door, the dog sat, which is the trained behavior upon discovering the odor's strongest point. Detective Bartelt then pulled the dog away from the door and returned to his vehicle, informing Detective Pedraja that there had been a positive alert for narcotics. On the basis of what he had learned at the home, Detective Pedraja applied for and received a warrant to search the residence. When the warrant was executed later that day, Jardines attempted to flee and was arrested; the search revealed marijuana plants, and he was charged with trafficking in cannabis. At trial, Jardines moved to suppress the marijuana plants on the ground that the canine investigation was an unreasonable search. The trial court granted the motion, and the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed. On a petition for discretionary review, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal and approved the trial court's decision to suppress. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the question of whether the officers' behavior was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
View caseHunter Hughes's will directed that his historic homestall be razed after his death. The court refused to enforce the direction because it violated public policy protecting the family residence.
In 1902, a trust indenture established Kingsbury Place as a private subdivision in St. Louis, with covenants requiring maintenance as desirable residence property of the highest class. The indenture empowers trustees and property owners to enforce its provisions against encroachment or injury. Except for one vacant lot, the subdivision features spacious two and three-story homes used exclusively as private residences. Louise Woodruff Johnston, owner of the house at #4 Kingsbury Place, died on January 14, 1973. Her will directed the executor, Mercantile Trust Co., to cause the home to be razed and the land sold, with proceeds transferred to the residue of the estate. Following Johnston's death, neighboring property owners and trustees for the Kingsbury Place Subdivision filed suit against the executor seeking an injunction to prevent demolition of the house. The plaintiffs contended that razing the home would adversely affect their property rights and the community. During trial, uncontradicted testimony established that the current value of the house and land totaled $40,000, while the empty lot would fetch no more than $5,000 after $4,350 in demolition costs. The St. Louis Commission on Landmarks and Urban Design had designated Kingsbury Place as a city landmark due to its architectural significance. Witnesses testified that demolition would depreciate adjoining property values by an estimated $10,000 and create a break in the urban design continuity. The trial court dissolved the temporary restraining order and ruled against the plaintiffs on all issues. The plaintiffs then appealed the denial of their petition to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
View caseHakeem Harris faced foreclosure on his homestall during an economic emergency. The state extended the redemption period under a mortgage moratorium statute. The Supreme Court upheld the extension as a valid exercise of state power to protect the family home.
The Blaisdells executed a mortgage on their property in Minneapolis to the Home Building & Loan Association on August 1, 1928. The mortgage contained a valid power of sale by advertisement. After default, the mortgage was foreclosed and the property sold to the Association on May 2, 1932, for $3700.98. The period of redemption under the law then in effect was set to expire on May 2, 1933. On April 18, 1933, Minnesota enacted Chapter 339 of the Laws of 1933, known as the Mortgage Moratorium Law. The statute authorized district courts to extend the period of redemption from foreclosure sales for such additional time as the court deemed just and equitable, not beyond May 1, 1935, upon condition that the mortgagor pay a reasonable part of the income or rental value toward taxes, insurance, interest, and principal. The Blaisdells applied to the District Court of Hennepin County for an extension of the redemption period. The district court found that the reasonable rental value of the property was $40 per month and the present market value was $6000. It extended the redemption period to May 1, 1935, requiring the Blaisdells to pay $40 per month to the Association. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the order. The Home Building & Loan Association appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which reviewed the judgment sustaining the statute as applied to the preexisting mortgage.
View caseA surviving spouse may waive the homestead allowance only by a written agreement signed before or after marriage. The agreement requires no consideration and is enforceable if voluntary.
The value of any constitutional homestead right in the family home is charged against the surviving spouse's homestead allowance to the extent the home forms part of the decedent's estate or would have but for the constitutional protection.
An individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits the homestead allowance along with all other benefits under the probate article.
The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, known historically as the curtilage or homestall, receives Fourth Amendment protection as part of the home itself.
…by all governments entitled to the name.” No court, he said, would hesitate to adjudge void any statute declaring that “the homestead now owned by A should no longer be his, but should henceforth be the property of B.” In accordance with these principles it was held, in that case, that the property of the citizen could…