Tittle v. Tittle, A-2063.
Decision Date | 27 April 1949 |
Docket Number | No. A-2063.,A-2063. |
Parties | TITTLE v. TITTLE. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Zephie Moody Tittle against L. A. Tittle for divorce. From the judgment, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. On certified questions from the Court of Civil Appeals.
One question answered.
Ramey & Ramey, T. J. Ramey, Sellers & Fanning, and Grover Sellers, all of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
Howard S. Smith, John A. Hicks, and Smith & Hicks, all of Sulphur Springs, for appellee.
The Court of Civil Appeals has certified for decision two questions of law arising in appellant's suit against appellee for divorce and the adjudication of property rights. The first question is as to the validity and effect of a deed executed by appellee L. A. Tittle, the husband, purporting to convey to L. A. Tittle and appellant, Zephie Tittle, the wife, 342.5 acres of land in Franklin County. The certificate thus sets out the material facts and pleadings in so far as they relate to the deed and the 342.5 acres of land:
The first of the two certified questions is:
"Under the pleadings and evidence above set out, did the trial court err in decreeing the deed hereinabove set out to be `void and of no force and effect whatsoever' by virtue of the holding in Kellett v. Trice, 95 Tex. 160, 66 S.W. 51?"
As indicated by the statement of the pleadings, the position taken by appellee is that the contract and the deed are void and of no effect because they merely evidence an effort on the part of the husband and wife by agreement to convert separate property into community property; while appellant contends that by reason of the deed the 342.5 acres of land became community property, and that the deed, if ineffective to accomplish that, conveyed to her an undivided one-half interest in the land.
We have reached the conclusion that the Court of Civil Appeals in its tentative opinion and the trial court in its judgment correctly decided that the question as to the validity and effect of the deed is determined by Kellett v. Trice, 95 Tex. 160, 66 S.W. 51. There is striking similarity in the facts and the instruments involved in that case and those in this case. In our opinion, the rules and principles announced in that case, when applied to the facts set out in the certificate herein and the instruments executed by the parties, compel the conclusion that the transaction did not change from separate to community the property described in the deed, and that the deed did not convey to the wife an interest in the land.
In the Kellett case the husband and wife joined in the execution of a deed conveying and transferring to a trustee several parcels of land and 130 shares of stock owned by the wife as her separate property, and also 108 shares of stock which were community property. The deed recited as its consideration and purpose "one dollar from each to the other paid, and for the purpose of divesting the separate estate and title of us and each of us in and to the property (hereinafter described) in which each of us shall hereafter own, hold, have and enjoy an equal undivided community interest, to the end that all of the same may stand and be as all other property now owned by us, viz., community property, regardless of in whose name the title thereto may stand, * * * and all increase, profit and income of every kind whatsoever from said property hereinafter described shall be and become after this date...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Kim
...rather than the community estate because it is not possible for a spouse to make a gift to the community estate. Tittle v. Tittle, 148 Tex. 102, 220 S.W.2d 637 (1949). Where one spouse conveys real property to the other spouse, or pays separate property consideration for real property and t......
-
Amarillo Nat. Bank v. Liston
...and the separate right is derived through a gift, the husband having full power over the community estate.' See also Tittle v. Tittle, 148 Tex. 102, 220 S.W .2d 637. In Cox v. Miller, 54 Tex. 16, it was said that while the husband may make a direct gift of his separate property or the commu......
- Burlingham v. Burlingham
-
Hilley v. Hilley
...and the separate right is derived through a gift, the husband having full power over the community estate.' See also Tittle v. Tittle, 148 Tex. 102, 220 S.W.2d 637. In Cox v. Miller, 54 Tex. 16, it was said that while the husband may make a direct gift of his separate property or the commun......