Bishop v. Williams
1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 775, 223 S.W. 512 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A husband cannot unilaterally abandon a homestead in fraud of his wife's rights, and a deed to a homestead executed by the husband alone is void without the wife's joinder, remaining ineffective even if the homestead is later abandoned, unless the abandonment is made in good faith and not against the wife's will, or a new homestead is acquired.
Facts:
- Soon after her second husband's death, Mary C. Williams bought 275 acres of land for $2,000, using community property funds and issuing three vendor's lien notes for $250 each, due one, two, and three years after December 11, 1901.
- Mary C. Williams requested her son, Berry Bishop (from a former marriage), to work the 275-acre farm, support her family, and pay the notes as they fell due, in exchange for which she promised to deed him 80 acres of land adjacent to the 275-acre tract.
- Berry Bishop complied with this agreement, and on May 24, 1903, he married Meppie Bishop.
- On December 11, 1903, Mary C. Williams executed a deed for the 80 acres in controversy to Berry Bishop, reciting his fulfillment of the contract.
- Berry and Meppie Bishop occupied the 80 acres as their homestead until the fall of 1917.
- On November 5, 1904, Berry Bishop executed a deed for the 80 acres back to his mother, Mary C. Williams, without Meppie Bishop joining; no consideration was paid, and Berry Bishop claimed he did it to prevent his mother from being annoyed by his other siblings.
- In the fall of 1917, Berry and Meppie Bishop moved to the town of Coleman, where Berry Bishop worked as a section hand, and they lived in a rented house.
- On August 9, 1918, Berry Bishop executed another deed for the 80 acres to his mother, Mary C. Williams, but Meppie Bishop refused to join in this deed.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary C. Williams and her children (appellees in the trial court) sued Berry Bishop and his wife, Meppie Bishop (appellants in the trial court), in a trial court (court of first instance) to recover 80 acres of land.
- The case was tried by the trial court without a jury.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Mary C. Williams and her children.
- Berry Bishop and Meppie Bishop (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a husband's unilateral declaration of abandonment, coupled with moving off the property but without the wife's knowledge or consent, and without acquiring a new homestead, constitute a valid abandonment of the homestead for the purpose of validating a prior deed executed by the husband alone or allowing a subsequent deed without the wife's joinder?
Opinions:
Majority - Jenkins, J.
No, a husband cannot deprive a wife of her homestead by an abandonment that is not in good faith and is in fraud of her rights, and a deed to a homestead executed by the husband alone is void. The court found the evidence insufficient to support a finding that Berry Bishop abandoned his homestead in good faith and without intent to defraud his wife. The deed executed by Berry Bishop to his mother on November 5, 1904, was void because the land was then the homestead of Bishop and his wife, Meppie Bishop, and Meppie did not join in its execution. A husband cannot change the homestead character of land upon which he and his wife reside by attorning to someone without title. Similarly, the deed of August 9, 1918, would convey no title if the land had not been abandoned as a homestead by the appellants. Abandonment of a homestead requires removal combined with an intention not to return, and proof of this intention must be clear and conclusive. Factors suggesting a lack of good faith and intent to defraud included: Meppie Bishop was unaware of such intention and had no such intention herself; their departure was for Berry Bishop's employment due to drought; Meppie moved to be with her husband and school children; they rented a house and never acquired another homestead; Berry Bishop attempted to cultivate the farm; and he received no consideration for the deed. The deed, if effective, would have constituted a gift of community property, which Meppie Bishop claimed as a homestead. For these reasons, this initial majority opinion reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
Dissenting - Jenkins, J.
(Arguing against the implied "Yes" from the new majority on rehearing) No, the court's "Associates" (the new majority on rehearing) erred in concluding that the homestead was validly abandoned or that the deeds were effective. Jenkins, J. contends that the first deed to Mrs. Williams (from 1904) was void because it was the homestead and Meppie Bishop did not join, and subsequent abandonment, even if proven, could not validate such a void deed. A husband's deed alone conveys no estate and cannot affect the wife's rights to her vested homestead estate, which is an estate in entirety held by both spouses. Furthermore, if the land was community property, gifting it to his mother under the circumstances was a fraud on the wife's community rights. Jenkins maintains the evidence was insufficient to prove Berry Bishop intended to abandon the homestead, or that he acted in good faith regarding his wife's homestead rights. He stresses that proof of abandonment must be clear and conclusive and that good faith must be proven, not merely surmised. The fact that Berry Bishop gave the land away without acquiring another homestead or using the proceeds for family support contradicted a belief that it was for the family's best interest. The homestead law is for the protection of the wife and children against the improvidence of the husband, as well as against creditors.
Analysis:
This case highlights the stringent protections afforded to a homestead under Texas law, particularly concerning the wife's rights. It underscores that a husband's unilateral actions, even with expressed intent to abandon, are largely ineffective in divesting the wife of her homestead interest if not done in good faith, with her consent, or without acquiring a new homestead. The case reinforces that deeds to a homestead without the wife's joinder are void, not merely voidable, and typically cannot be validated by subsequent events like abandonment. Future cases will continue to scrutinize the husband's intent and the wife's knowledge and consent when determining homestead abandonment, requiring clear and conclusive evidence to overcome the strong presumption against such abandonment, especially when it appears to be in fraud of the wife's rights.
