{
  "id": 1719901,
  "name": "NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. (of Milwaukee, Wisconsin) v. Nan B. SULCER and The Estate of Clyde SULCER, deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Northwestern National Insurance v. Sulcer",
  "decision_date": "1979-10-29",
  "docket_number": "79-197",
  "first_page": "31",
  "last_page": "34",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "267 Ark. 31"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "588 S.W.2d 442"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "43 Ark. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1894432
      ],
      "year": 1884,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/43/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.W. 2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 Ark. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1414975
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/192/0740-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672611
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0583-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 5202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.914,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31066367189747357
    },
    "sha256": "75664ed7f7d69898955b1397bf6d08b508d3aec41e046c7e992df6a38c36c24e",
    "simhash": "1:82d8ab0dde4e58f4",
    "word_count": 855
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:49.696704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree, Harris. C.J., Byrd and Holt, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. (of Milwaukee, Wisconsin) v. Nan B. SULCER and The Estate of Clyde SULCER, deceased"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice.\nNorthwestern National Insuranee Company, as surety for the widow who was the administratrix of her husband\u2019s estate, paid a claim on her bond because of misuse of the estate funds. The insurance company, after paying the estate, obtained judgment against the administratrix and sought to execute against her dower rights. We upheld the trial court\u2019s decision to permit Northwestern to levy upon her dower rights, but declined to advise on what the results would be so far as the general creditors were concerned. Sulcer v. Northwestern National Ins. Co., 263 Ark. 583, 566 S.W. 2d 397 (1978). Subsequently, the trial court assigned dower rights to the widow and granted Northwestern\u2019s petition to execute upon the dower rights. However, the trial court held that the execution by petitioner on the dower rights broke the barrier of homestead exemption and the entire interest in the homestead was subject to execution by the other creditors. The house and lot were sold and the proceeds are being held pending this appeal.\nOn appeal, Northwestern argues the homestead exemption runs only in its favor and does not inure to the benefit of the creditors of decedent\u2019s estate. We agree with appellant\u2019s contention.\nThe facts are not in dispute. The widow misused the funds from her husband\u2019s estate and the insurance company paid the estate $25,333.33 and obtained a judgment in this amount against the widow. When the surety attempted to execute against the widow\u2019s interest, she claimed the homestead exemption. The trial court held the widow\u2019s interest was subject to levy by the surety. On appeal we affirmed the trial court. Sulcer v. Northwestern, supra. Thereafter, the trial court assigned dower to the widow and ordered the entire property sold with the interest above the dower to be applied to the claims of the creditors of the estate. The court reasoned once the homestead barrier was removed in favor of Northwestern, it was removed for all purposes. The house was ordered sold with the proceeds to be distributed to costs, to Northwestern for the dower interest and the balance to estate\u2019s general creditors. The court synchronized the probate and chancery powers and held a joint sale. The proceeds ($ 12,000) of the sale are being held pending this appeal.\nWe held in the first appeal that the homestead exemption granted in the Arkansas Constitution, Article 9, Section 6, did not preclude Northwestern from levying execution on the widow\u2019s dower interest. This same provision specifically excludes from homestead exemption execution for purchase money, laborer\u2019s and mechanic\u2019s liens, taxes and claims against executors, administrators, guardians and receivers. The foregoing claims are in fact not exempt as homestead. However, general creditors of the estate are not authorized to execute against the estate. As executrix, the widow was not entitled to claim the homestead exemption against Northwestern.\nArticle 9, Section 6, allows the widow to have her dower interest for life in the home place. Additionally, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 62-2702 (Repl. 1971) exempts the homestead of a widow or minor children from sale by a personal representative for payments of the debts of the decedent. Therefore, there is a double exemption protecting the widow\u2019s interest from sale by the general creditors. We fail to see any reason why the general creditors of the estate should be allowed to have the homestead sold simply because one authorized to claim against the homestead has done so. They are not authorized to levy execution because they are prohibited by the Constitution and the law.\nWhen Northwestern paid the estate the monies which the widow took from the estate, it became the owner of that much of her interest. The sale as set up by the probate and chancery court did not produce enough money to satisfy the surety\u2019s judgment. The effect of the sale as ordered would be an around about way of taking the homestead of the widow in direct controvention of express constitutional and statutory provisions. If the widow\u2019s defalcation erased the exemption barrier, the general creditors would benefit at the expense of the surety who has already made the general creditors whole for the misapplication of the funds by the executrix. We do not believe this is the intent of the exemption provisions of the law.\nIt has been said by one text writer that the homestead is as completely beyond the reach of ordinary creditors as if it were on another planet. We have stated that the homestead exemption has no creditors except those mentioned in the Constitution. Bank of Dover v. Jones, 192 Ark. 740, 95 S.W. 2d 92 (1936); Stanley v. Snyder, 43 Ark. 429 (1884). The only way the exemption may be removed is by waiver or abandonment. Neither have occurred here except insofar as the claim of Northwestern is concerned.\nReversed and remanded.\nWe agree, Harris. C.J., Byrd and Holt, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rieves, Rieves & Shelton, by; Elton A. Rieves, III, for appellant.",
      "No brief for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. (of Milwaukee, Wisconsin) v. Nan B. SULCER and The Estate of Clyde SULCER, deceased\n79-197\n588 S.W. 2d 442\nOpinion delivered October 29, 1979\n(Division II)\nRieves, Rieves & Shelton, by; Elton A. Rieves, III, for appellant.\nNo brief for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0031-01",
  "first_page_order": 61,
  "last_page_order": 64
}