Canales v. Oliver, 13435
| Decision Date | 04 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 13435,13435 |
| Citation | 322 S.W.2d 411 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Rosa S. CANALES, Administratrix, Appellant, v. Guadalupe Sandoval OLIVER, Guardian, Appellee. |
Fitzgibbon & Goodwin, John Fitzgerald Ryan, Laredo, for appellant.
Bismark Pope, Abraham Kazen, Jr., Laredo, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Webb County, Texas, setting aside Lot 2 in Block 154, Western Division of the City of Laredo in Webb County, Texas, in its entirety, together with all improvements thereon, for the use and benefit of a minor, Maria Theresa Sandoval, and her guardian, Guadalupe Sandoval Oliver. It was found by the court that said lot was the homestead of Maria de Jesus Saenz de Sandoval, the deceased mother of both the minor and her guardian. In other words, the minor and her guardian are sisters.
It is the contention of Rosa Sandoval Canales, administratrix of the estate of Maria de Jesus Saenz de Sandoval, deceased, that deceased, during her lifetime, had abandoned certain partions of said Lot 2 as her homestead by maintaining two rent houses thereon. The trial court found that Mrs. Sandoval, deceased, had not abandoned any part of said Lot 2 as her homestead, and awarded the property to the minor, Maria Theresa Sandoval, 'to be used through her guardian under order of the proper court.'
The evidence shows that Santiago Sandoval, deceased, and Maria de Jesus Saenz de Sandoval, during their lifetime, were husband and wife. As issue of their marriage, some seven children were born to them, two of whom were deceased at the time of their mother's death. Mr. and Mrs. Sandoval entered into a contract to purchase said Lot 2 in Block 154, and were making payments thereon at the time of Mr. Sandoval's death in March, 1920. The Sandovals lived and made their home on said Lot 2 for many years. After the death of her husband, Mrs. Sandoval completed the payments on the property and received the deed thereto in her name. She operated a tortilla factory and grocery store in a little house located on the lot, in which the family also lived. In about 1925, Mrs. Sandoval purchased a large frame house, hereinafter referred to as the duplex, and moved it onto the southwest corner of said Lot 2. She then carried on her business of making tortillas, etc., in the west side of the duplex, and she and her family resided in the east side. Mrs. Sandoval thereafter rented out the small house which was located on the southeast corner of Lot 2. In 1930, she became ill and sold her tortilla factory and stock of groceries, and rented out the west side of the duplex to another who carried on the business therein. In the year 1945 Mrs. Sandoval erected a house on the north end of Lot 2 and rented it out since that time. In 1952, Mrs. Sandoval adopted a minor child three years of age, who is the minor herein involved. The child is now ten years of age and Guadalupe Sandoval Oliver has been duly appointed guardian of this minor.
The administratrix does not deny that the minor and her guardian are entitled to the use of the duplex during the minority of the child, together with the right of ingress and egress to the same, but she does contend that the remainder of the lot had been abandoned by Mrs. Sandoval as her homestead, prior to the time of her death, and that therefore the minor is not entitled to have that portion of said Lot 2 set aside to her as homestead property. Mrs. Sandoval died in 1955, and at the time of her death she had been renting one of these houses for some thirty years and the other for some ten years.
The County Judge of Webb County, sitting in matters of probate, set aside to the minor and her guardian the duplex and half the ground between the duplex and a rent house to the north, and found that the space between the duplex and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Majeski v. Estate of Majeski
...what portions of the property, if any, were not subject to Majeski's claims of homestead. See Canales v. Oliver, 322 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("appellant, having undertaken to show that portions of said lot had been abandoned for homestead purposes ......
-
Estate of Cantu
...permanently abandoned the leased property. See Sullivan v. Barnett, 471 S.W.2d 39, 43 (Tex. 1971); Canales v. Oliver, 322 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Soria had the additional burden of establishing the location of the parcel that had been abandoned.......
-
Tolman v. Overstreet, 1277
...presented that the homestead was ever abandoned, and appellee had the burden to show abandonment. Canales v. Oliver, 322 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd, n. r. e.). Appellee argues the fact that two separate houses existed on the same tract of land defeats charact......