Court Opinion

ID: 9829195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:04:03.013438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:58.181972
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
This cause was affirmed on the original disposition. On the appellant’s motion for a rehearing we reversed the action of the trial court in sustaining a general demurrer to the trial pleadings filed on behalf of the estáte of Martin Padalecki, deceased.
According to the trial pleadings, the tract of 69½ acres ot land was the community property of Martin and Elizabeth Padalecki, and, at all of the material times in question, a part of the homestead of said Padaleckis and their children. This being true, upon the death of Martin Padalecki the property (being homestead) descended and vested in like manner as other real property of the deceased. Art. 16, § 52, Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St. The property being homestead, the probate court having jurisdiction of the estate of Martin Padalecki, deceased, does not have power to administer it, except where debts exist for which such an estate is constitutionally liable, which is not the case here. Cline v. Niblo, 117 Tex. 474, 8 S.W.2d 633, 66 A.L.R. 916, Supreme Court.
In the case of Dignowity v. Baumblatt, 38 Tex.Civ.App. 363, 85 S.W. 834, 835, it is said: “If the land in controversy was the homestead of appellants, it was not subject to administration, and any attempt on the part of the county court to subject it to administration was null and void.” These expressions were approved by our Supreme Court in the Cline case, supra.
The administratrix of' the deceased had no right to recover this property. Therefore, the trial court correctly sustained the general demurrer to the pleading filed on behalf of the estate of Martin Padalecki, deceased.
This is not a case, where the heirs of Martin Padalecki, deceased, in their own names, or through another as their representative, are moving to set aside the judgment, deed of trust lien, and their father’s deed because of the homestead character of the property and the insanity of their father. Neither is it a case of the surviving spouse suing as a survivor in community, or for the benefit of minor children. Elizabeth Padalecki sues only individually and as administratrix of the estate of Martin Padalecki, deceased.
Since, as we have held, Elizabeth Pad-alecki was a party to the original suit at the time of the rendition- of the judgment sought to be set aside and did not assert her homestead rights, she cannot, for herself, urge such rights in this suit .without showing facts which in -law would excuse her for a failure to assert such rights in the first suit; and the estate of Martin Padalecki, deceased, having no interest in the land sought to be recovered, which, if homestead, descended to the heirs of said Padalecki, the trial court correctly ruled in this case.
The appellees’ motion for rehearing will. be granted, the opinion on motion for rehearing of appellant will be withdrawn, the motion for rehearing filed by the appellant will.be overruled,' and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.