[Back to Index]     [Back to 2000 Texas Case Summaries]

Estate Administration

Homestead

    In re Estate of Casida, 13 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet. h.).

    Decedent’s Son and Step-Daughter disagreed over the homestead character of Decedent’s house.  Son and Step-Daughter essentially agreed that the house had been Decedent’s homestead but Step-Daughter argued that Decedent had abandoned the homestead for the last ten years of his life because he lived elsewhere for most of the time.  The trial court agreed with Step-Daughter.

    The appellate court reversed.  The court indicated that “[w]hen homestead rights are once shown to exist in property, they are presumed to continue, and anyone asserting an abandonment has the burden of proving it by competent evidence.”  Casida at 521.  The evidence showed that although Decedent lived in various locations in another state, he did return to the alleged homestead two to four times a year.  In addition, there was no evidence that Decedent purchased a home elsewhere or removed his furnishings from the alleged homestead.  The court thus held that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Decedent abandoned the homestead.  The effect of the house being homestead property then became relevant.

    Son was unmarried and he remained with the family.  Thus, the homestead descended free from the claims of most of Decedent’s creditors.  Probate Code § 271.  However, this fact did not give Son the right to remain in the homestead because he is not one of the parties entitled to occupy the homestead, that is, the surviving spouse or a minor child.  Thus, Step-Daughter may demand a partition of the homestead.

    Moral:  The existence of an unmarried adult child living in the homestead will cause the homestead to pass free of a decedent’s debts but will not give this child the right to occupy the homestead.

Estate Administration

Removal of Independent Executor

    In re Estate of Casida, 13 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet. h.).

    Decedent’s will appointed Step-Daughter as the independent executor.  Son’s attempt to remove Step-Daughter from office failed and Son appealed.

    The appellate court affirmed finding that there was no basis to remove Step-Daughter under Probate Code § 149C.  The court stated that “[a]lthough [Son] made several allegations of misconduct and conflict of interest against [Step-Daughter] as independent executrix, he failed to prove she willfully omitted to perform a legal duty, intentionally committed a wrong act, or breached a fiduciary duty.”  Casida at 524.  The dispute between Son and Step-Daughter was merely a disagreement over the value of rights to and the status of estate property.

    Moral:  A person seeking the removal of an executor must prove conduct warranting removal and not merely dissatisfaction with the executor’s actions or decisions.