Thus, Chaban could not have been deprived of his entitlement to his homestead or his exemption, of which he complains, by the levying officer's failure to fully comply with the procedural requirements before the sale. Vanden Bogert v May, 334 Mich 606, 613; 55 NW2d 115 (1952) (concluding that equitable relief was not warranted where the judgment debtor was not deprived of her right to claim her exemption). We affirm.
(Emphasis supplied.) The Stearns case was cited with approval in Vanden Bogert v May, 334 Mich. 606, 611; 55 N.W.2d 115, 117-118 (1952), wherein it was stated: "The common law, both in England and America, jealous of instrusion upon domestic peace and security, regards every man's house as his castle and fortress as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.
This venerable principle underlies the whole law dealing with the right to break and enter a dwelling house for civil recovery of property. Vanden Bogert v. May, 55 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Mich. 1952). The question then becomes whether the General Assembly has plainly manifested an intent to abrogate this common law principle.
" Vanden Bogert v. May, 334 Mich. 606, 611, 55 N.W.2d 115, 117-18 (1952). The establishment of the fourth amendment and more recent decisions such as G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, supra, only tend to reinforce the common-law rule.
" Among other cases of like import are: Lau v. Lau, 304 Mich. 218; Steketee v. Steketee, 317 Mich. 100; Vanden Bogert v. May, 334 Mich. 606. Our consideration of the proofs in the instant case lead to the conclusion that the holding of the trial court with reference to the moneys in the joint account is not inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and that, in consequence, appellant's claim of error in such respect is not well founded. As before noted, the opinion of the trial judge discloses that Frederick L. Wild died prior to the entering of the decree.
After reviewing the testimony given by 8 witnesses in behalf of the plaintiff, and the testimony of the defendant herself, who was her only witness, we find no justification for overruling the finding of the trial judge. Kelley v. Dodge, 334 Mich. 499, and Vanden Bogert v. May, 334 Mich. 606. The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.
At common law, for example, a process server's authority to enter private property to serve legal papers ends at the door to the recipient's home. See, e.g. , Vanden Bogert v. May , 334 Mich. 606, 55 N.W.2d 115, 117-18 (1952) ; cf. People v. Lutz , 762 P.2d 715, 717 (Colo. App. 1988) (holding that the defendant was entitled to a defense of premises instruction where a police officer unlawfully forced his way into the defendant's house). For much the same reason, courts commonly recognize that if a process server is prevented from approaching the front door, "the outer bounds of the actual dwelling place must be deemed to extend to the location at which the process server's progress is arrested."
Basically, the case involved only the testimony of the two sides as to what they intended when they contracted. It is well settled that when testimony is conflicting the findings of the trial court will be upheld in the absence of a showing that a contrary result should have been reached. Green v. Bambrick, 331 Mich. 243 (1951); Vanden Bogert v. May, 334 Mich. 606 (1952). Here the trial court heard a 77-year-old woman, obviously illiterate, state that she did not understand what she was signing or what the terms of the agreement were.