Court Opinion

ID: 9779349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:47:47.651116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:25.614368
License: Public Domain

BUTTS, Justice,
dissenting to disposition; concurring on the merits.
I concur with the majority statements of law which rely upon TEX. CONST. art. XVI § 50 and the Texas cases construing the superior homestead right of Irma Rocha Villarreal. I further concur with the *610conclusion that the Bank has a viable encumbrance by deed of trust lien on the former husband’s property which is now his by fee simple title. So long as the homestead interest continues (until the youngest child of the marriage becomes eighteen), there can be no forced sale.
What I do not agree with and believe is misleading is this court’s judgment, that is, the disposition. The trial court granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment “in all respects” and denied Villarreal’s by a “take nothing” order. An examination of the motion of the Bank reveals it addresses only the question of the homestead right; it does not ask for any relief as to its rights under the deed of trust lien.1 Of course, there was no reason for the Bank to ask for that judgment, for it knew its lien was viable as to the husband’s title. The Bank’s motion is directed solely to the homestead claim, and the court granted the motion.
By “modifying” and affirming the judgment we are holding the Bank was successful in its motion. But what is left after this court takes away the only relief it asked for: a denial of the homestead claim. What is left to modify? Nothing. We are then writing a new judgment and NOT modifying. Further we are penalizing the successful party, Villarreal. TEX.R.CIV.P. 435, 448. This we should not do.
The judgment should be reversed and rendered. The trial court should have denied the Bank’s motion. The trial court should have granted the relief asked for by Villarreal with the exception of the permanent injunction. By reversing and rendering we would recognize the homestead estate and that it remains in effect until the youngest child of the marriage becomes eighteen. Therefore, I would reverse and render.

. The Bank's motion for summary judgment sets out its specific ground:
Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the uncontradicted summary judgment evidence establishes as a matter of law the absence of the following element of the plaintiffs cause of action: a homestead right in the subject property and thus a duty and obligation on the Laredo National Bank to advise plaintiff of the extension and renewal of a valid pre-existing debt and obtain her consent to such action. In essence, there is no shown a violation of any legal duty owed to plaintiff.