Moorhouse v. Crew
| Decision Date | 08 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 12780,12780 |
| Citation | 273 S.W.2d 654 |
| Parties | W. F. MOORHOUSE, Appellee. v. Fare Moorhouse CREW, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
W. B. Moss, John H. Miller, Sinton, Tom Pogue, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Luther E. Jones, Jr., Neal Dancer, Corpus Christi, for appellee.
The point presented by this appeal is whether the deed, described below, by a father who had the exclusive homestead rights in the property, resulted in an abandonment of that exclusive right. The trial court held that there was such an abandonment.
W. F. Moorhouse, a widower, prior to November 25, 1942, owned an undivided five-sixths interest in four city lots in Aransas Pass. For twenty years before that date he continuously, together with his wife befoee her death, occupied the premises as his home, so he also had an exclusive homestead interest which extended to the other one-sixth interest which was owned by his daughter, Faye Moorhouse Crew, who was not in possession. Massillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Barrow, Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 368. On November 25, 1942, Mr. Moorhouse deeded the four lots to his daughter, Faye Crew. The consideration for the deed was 'the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, * * * and the further consideration that grantee, Faye Moorhouse Crew, my daughter agrees to keep me, providing my food, clothing and necessities in my old age and until my death, and the purpose of this instrument being to secure her in such services, care and attention given me, under such agreement, which shall be a requisite to consideration for this conveyance * * *.' After describing the property, the deed stated:
'It is provided that the condition of this conveyance is that grantor shall reserve to himself, the right to use, enjoy and possess the aforesaid described lands until his death, and that at such time this conveyance shall become effective, provided that grantee herein shall faithfully care for me in my old age, as hereinbefore set forth.'
After delivery of the deed, Mr. Moorhouse continued to reside on the property and his daughter moved in with him to commerce caring for him. They lived together in the home until May, 1952, when he became dissatisfied with his daughter's treatment and moved out. His daughter then moved also and rented the home. She stands ready to return to the home and care for and support her father, who refused to return unless he is awarded exclusive possession. His daughter claims that the deed to her entitles him to possession, but not possession which would exclude her. The trial court refused to cancel the deed for failure of consideration and no error is asserted on that part of the judgment.
Before Moorhouse executed the deed he owned five-sixths of the property and also had a homestead interest in the other one-sixth. After the deed, the trial court held that Moorhouse owned a life estate in his five-sixths interest but that he lost his homestead interest in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Barnett
...Co. v. Powell, 142 Tex. 63, 175 S.W.2d 960 (1943); Burkhardt v. Lieberman, 138 Tex. 409, 159 S.W.2d 847 (1942); Moorhouse v. Crew, 273 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Civ.App., 1954, writ ref.). The party claiming abandonment must plead it and carry the burden of proving it. Postal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. ......
-
Kim v. Dome Entm't Ctr., Inc. (In re Kim)
...in the person or family who has a present possessory interest in the subject property.”); see also Moorhouse v. Crew, 273 S.W.2d 654, 655–56 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1954, writ ref'd) (holding that spouse's homestead interest was not abandoned because right to possession continued). 83.See......
-
Gill v. Quinn
...affirmative proof of abandonment. M. H. Lauchheimer & Sons v. Saunders, 97 Tex. 137, 76 S.W. 750 (1903); Moorhouse v. Crew, 273 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1954, writ ref'd); McKenzie v. Mayer, 20 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1929, no writ). We hold that Quinn established by summa......
-
In re Moore
...282 S.W.2d 315, rev'd on other grounds, 287 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1955) (a tenancy in common); Moorhouse v. Crew, 273 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1954, writ ref'd) (an undivided interest in land); Haynes v. Vermillion, 242 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1951, wri......