Court Opinion

ID: 9775470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:59:49.977881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:26.530495
License: Public Domain

CANTU, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the reversal, but I would further hold that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the forfeiture because appellees failed to comply with article 1301b1 once there was evidence of an intent to use the property as a residence. Clearly there was sufficient evidence to mandate compliance with the notice requirement. In the absence of compliance the trial court should have set aside the forfeiture.

. Article 1301b now TEX.PROP.CODE ANN. §§ 5.061, 5.062 and 5.063 (Vernon 1983) provided in pertinent part at the time of trial:
(1) A forfeiture of the interest ... of a purchaser in default under an executory contract for conveyance of real property used or to be used as the purchaser’s residence may be enforced only after notice of seller’s intentions to enforce the forfeiture ... has been given to the purchaser and only after the expiration of ...
(c) ... 60 days from the date notice was given.