Court Opinion

ID: 9654217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:10:29.331247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:06.955373
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Smith, joined by Justices Calvert and Walker,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority opinion on all points decided with the exception of the holding that the full title to the Wilson property passed to the petitioners under paragraph Four of the will. The mere fact that respondent joined in signing the note and deed of trust to secure the money which was borrowed to purchase the Wilson property does not overcome the undisputed evidence that respondent did not know of the recitations contained in the deed. The trial court found as a fact that the Wilson property was community property. The evidence does not show an intent on the part of respondent to make a gift of this property to his wife. The petitioners cite the case of Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Brothers, Texas Civ. App., 194 S.W. 608, 609, (no writ history) to support its contention that the signing of the note and deed of trust is evidence of a gift and that the Wilson property passed under the will as separate property. In that case the evidence showed “that it was the understanding and agreement between the parties that the money borrowed on the note at the time of the transaction should be the separate property of Mrs. Brothers.” (Emphasis added). We have no such evidence in this case. In the present case the note does not contain any recitations to the effect that the money borrowed was to be the separate property of Mrs. Ellis. The deed of trust is not in evidence. The note was an obligation of *357the community. See Rosenbaum et al v. Texas Bldg. & Mortg. Co., et al, 140 Texas 325, 167 S.W. 2d 506.
The trial court, upon controverted facts, found that the Wilson property was community and the Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed such holding. .This Court cannot say as a matter of law the Wilson tract is separate property.
Opinion delivered April 13, 1955.
Rehearing denied May 11, 1955.