Clark v. Salinas

Decision Date30 November 1981
Docket NumberNo. 1933,1933
Citation626 S.W.2d 118
PartiesJohn W. CLARK, Appellant, v. Jose Genaro SALINAS and Jose Javier Salinas, Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Joseph R. Preston, Office of John W. Clark, P.C., Mission, for appellant.

James S. Bates, Edinburg, for appellees.

Before BISSETT, YOUNG and GONZALEZ, JJ.

OPINION

YOUNG, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction restraining the forced sale of purported homestead property of a single adult man for the satisfaction of a judgment. We affirm.

The events from which this controversy emanates are as follows. Appellant, John W. Clark, has a judgment of $3,715.00 against Jose Genaro Salinas, and as a result of that judgment a writ of execution was issued on property owned by Salinas described as lot 3, Block 4, Alton Heights Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas. Salinas brought this action to enjoin the sale claiming the protection of homestead.

Salinas' property consists of a 50 X 135 feet vacant lot located within the city of Alton. He bought the lot in 1975 and has not lived there, has not placed any improvements on it, and has not cut firewood from it during his period of ownership. He testified that he owned no other property, however, and that he claims this lot as his homestead. He further testified that he does construction work, knows how to pour cement for a foundation, and intends to build a house on the lot. In December of 1979, he purchased 1500 cement blocks, some windows and steel bars "to start a house" on his property. He stored the construction materials at his mother's house and then had building plans drawn up.

In January of 1980, Mr. Salinas suffered an injury to his hand which prevented his working. He stated that at the time of trial he was still unable to begin building his home, but that he still intended to do so in the future. The trial court granted Salinas' request for a temporary injunction preventing the sale of his land based upon a finding that the land was Salinas' homestead.

Appellant sets forth only one point of error in which he contends that the trial court erred because the property does not meet the definition of a homestead. As appellant acknowledges, his success in reversing the trial court's ruling on a temporary injunction depends on his showing of a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Friedmann, 572 S.W.2d 373, 375 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Corpus Christi C.T.A. v. Corpus Christi I.S.D., 535 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1976, no writ). He further points out that the broad discretion of the trial court does not extend however, to the erroneous application of law to undisputed facts. City of Spring Valley v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 484 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tex.1972). The appellant does not quarrel with any of the facts brought forward in the record, rather he contends that the conclusion derived from the application of the law to those facts is incorrect as a matter of law. Consequently, he urges that the trial court abused its discretion through an erroneous application of the law to the facts.

Since November of 1973, the Texas Constitution has provided that, within a city, a homestead for a single adult shall consist of a lot whose value, exclusive of improvements, is not to exceed $10,000.00 and which is used for the purposes of a home or place to exercise the calling of a business. Tex.Const. art. 16 § 51 (Vernon Supp.1980); see also Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3833(a)(3) (Vernon Supp.1980). A homestead is exempt from forced sale for the payment of debts (with certain exceptions not pertinent here). Tex.Const. art. 16 § 50 (Vernon Supp.1980); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3835 (Vernon Supp.1980).

The proof of a homestead must show use for some purpose of a home, such use as a residence or as a place to cultivate crops or cut firewood for the claimant's personal consumption. Sims v. Beeson, 545...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Bradley, Matter of
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 13, 1992
    ...(Tex.App.--Austin 1987, writ denied) (grazing of cattle is use of property for homestead purposes); Clark v. Salinas, 626 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (cultivation of crops is use of property for homestead purposes). Accordingly, we conclude that Bradle......
  • In re Moody
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • August 13, 1987
    ...n.r.e.); Spence v. Spence, 455 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tex.Civ.App. —Houston 14th Dist. 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Clark v. Salinas, 626 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1981), writ ref'd n.r.e., 628 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.1982). 9. Ordinarily, the initial burden of proving the existence of a homes......
  • In re Bohac
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Texas
    • May 25, 1990
    ...faith intention to occupy a homestead by and of itself is not sufficient to create a homestead. Clark v. Salinas, 626 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The effect of the failure to abandon in fact is "Without the abandonment of an existing homestead, n......
  • In re Perry
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Texas
    • April 12, 2001
    ...of two hundred acres — that is used for the support of the debtor and her family." See id. (citing Clark v. Salinas, 626 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Sims v. Beeson, 545 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1977, writ ref'd Evidence presented at the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT