Houston Lumber Supply Company v. Wockenfuss
386 S.W.2d 330 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a homestead interest in unoccupied property, the owner must have a bona fide intention to reside there as a home, coupled with an overt act of preparation evidencing that intention. A contractor who fails to substantially perform a construction contract on such a homestead cannot foreclose a mechanic's lien, nor can they recover in quantum meruit unless the owner has voluntarily accepted the benefits of the work.
Facts:
- Leo and his wife Wockenfuss purchased a vacant lot with the express intention of building their permanent home on it.
- Prior to signing any lien instruments, Leo Wockenfuss performed overt acts of preparation on the lot, including removing a tree, digging up the stump, clearing the land, and staking it out.
- The Wockenfusses entered into a contract with Houston Lumber Supply Company for the construction of a house on the lot.
- On September 19, 1960, the Wockenfusses executed a promissory note, deed of trust, and mechanic's lien to secure payment for the construction.
- Houston Lumber constructed the house with significant defects, including a cracked foundation and walls, and a foundation level so low it caused flooding and prevented connection to the city sewer system.
- The Wockenfusses moved into the defective house because their money was gone and they had no other place to live.
Procedural Posture:
- The Wockenfusses (plaintiffs) sued Houston Lumber Supply Company (defendant) in a Texas trial court to cancel a promissory note and enjoin the enforcement of a deed of trust and mechanic's lien.
- Houston Lumber filed a cross-action for the balance due on the note, foreclosure of the liens, and alternatively, for recovery in quantum meruit.
- A jury in the trial court returned a verdict finding that Houston Lumber did not substantially perform the contract, that the work was not workmanlike, and that the property constituted the Wockenfusses' homestead prior to the creation of the liens.
- Based on the jury verdict, the trial court entered a judgment cancelling the note and liens and ordered that Houston Lumber take nothing on its cross-action.
- Houston Lumber Supply Company, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, the 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 contractor's failure to substantially perform a construction contract on a property intended as a homestead invalidate the contractor's mechanic's lien and prevent recovery in quantum meruit when the homeowner occupies the defective house out of necessity rather than acceptance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Coleman
Yes. A contractor's failure to substantially perform a building contract on a homestead invalidates the associated mechanic's lien, and recovery in quantum meruit is barred if the homeowner's occupancy of the defective structure is due to necessity rather than a voluntary acceptance of benefits. The court reasoned that the Wockenfuss property was impressed with a homestead character prior to the execution of the lien documents because the Wockenfusses possessed the requisite intent to make it their home and had performed overt acts of preparation on the land. Under Texas law, a mechanic's lien on a homestead is enforceable only if the underlying contract is substantially performed. Since the jury found Houston Lumber failed to substantially perform, the lien was invalid. Furthermore, while a contractor may sometimes recover in quantum meruit for the value of their work despite failing to substantially perform, such recovery requires that the owner accept the benefits of the labor and materials. Here, the evidence showed the Wockenfusses occupied the house out of necessity after protesting its defects, which does not constitute a legal acceptance of benefits.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong legal protections afforded to homesteads under Texas law and clarifies the requirements for establishing a homestead on unimproved property. The case is significant for distinguishing between occupancy out of necessity and the legal concept of 'acceptance of benefits.' It establishes that a homeowner forced to inhabit a defectively constructed house does not waive their right to contest payment, thereby preventing contractors from benefiting from a homeowner's desperate circumstances. This precedent limits the availability of equitable remedies like quantum meruit for contractors who fail to meet their contractual obligations on homestead properties.
