Salomon v. Lesay, 369 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.)- The general rule is that once a homestead has been established, it is protected from a forced sale for the payment of any debts, except for those listed as exceptions in the Texas Constitution and the Texas Property Code (Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 50 and Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 41.001; and see Exceptions to Constitutional Homestead Protection). Texas courts liberally construe constitutional homestead provisions to protect property subject to those provisions.
Majeski v. Estate of Majeski, 163 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.)- The court found that a homestead is a constitutionally created legal interest that protects certain designated real property from all but a few specific types of liens that may be imposed against the property.
Tolman v. Overstreet, 590 S.W.2d 635 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1979, no writ) - The court held that: (1) the land in question was homestead property and, since decedent's wife did not join in conveyance of the property under the alleged oral gift, the conveyance was void; (2) trial court erred in awarding cash to defendant for care and feeding of decedent's cattle since such issue was not supported by the pleadings; (3) evidence sustained jury's finding that a gift of refund for the rings was made to defendant; and (4) trial court committed harmless error in awarding the rings to defendant.
Lucas v. Lucas, 104 Tex. 636, 143 S.W. 1153 (1912)- The court held that the condemnation proceeds were not subject to partition between the widow and the children without her consent. The proceeds, however, were based on the ownership interest in the homestead before it was condemned and converted into money. Moreover, the widow was able to invest the entire proceeds in another homestead with the ownership interests the same as those in the previous homestead. If the partition had been voluntary, an agreement would have been required by the owners that the proceeds were to go intact to a new property.
Allen v. Monk, 505 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. 1974), the Texas Supreme Court held that since January 1, 1968, the effective date of repeal of prior statutory impediments, specific performance will lie, as available under common law, to compel the sale of a homestead under written contract executed by husband and wife, citing Tex. Const. art. 16, § 50. References are also made to 31 Texas Bar 477 at 551 (1967) concerning the repeal of Arts. 1300, 6605 and 6608, which terminated the wife's statutory privilege of retracting her consent until a separate acknowledgment is taken, and there is no longer any validity to the prohibition of specific performance of an executory contract to sell a homestead on this basis. A married woman has full power to contract. Cites former § 4.03, Family Code (now § 1.104). With repeal of the statutory impediments to specific performance against the wife, specific performance will lie as available under common law.
Sifuentes v. Arriola, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2849, 2009 WL 1099253 - The court held that the law in Texas was long settled that one who owned and resided in a building could have claimed the entire building as a homestead, even if part of it was rented out. The debtor's residence and usage of the property was sufficient to obviate the issue of intent and render the entire property his homestead. The Property in dispute is exempt from judgment liens because it has been a homestead at all relevant times.
Hudgins v. Thompson, 109 Tex. 433, 211 S.W. 586, 1919 Tex. LEXIS 77- The court held that: (1) where the seller agreed to sell and convey the homestead, received part pay therefor, and delivered possession to the purchaser, removing elsewhere with his wife and having no intention to return and occupy it, his abandonment thereof was complete; (2) the wife's consent was not essential; (3) the acquisition of a new homestead was not a condition precedent to abandonment; (4) the seller abandoned the land prior to the conveyance to the subsequent purchaser; and (5) the purchaser's right to enforce the contract was not defeated by his failure to show that the improvements he made exceeded in value the use of the land.
This library guide is for educational purposes only. It was created to provide limited information on a specified topic. Several pieces of the material throughout this library guide were gathered from other sources. The links to these sources are provided for the reader/users convenience, though they may not be the most up to date information. The aim is to provide the most accurate and up to date material and information. However, there is no guarantee that this information is accurate or error-free. The information provided in this library guide should not be relied on as legal advice nor does it create an attorney client relationship. Readers or users of this library guide seeking advice legal advice should not rely on this material. Those seeking legal advice should contact a practicing attorney, as legal issues are typically complicated. Further, a confidential, lawyer-client, advisory, or fiduciary, relationship shall not be implied from this library guide.