Howard v. Commonwealth Building & Loan Ass'n
1936 Tex. LEXIS 336, 127 Tex. 365, 94 S.W.2d 144 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Heirs asserting an equitable community property interest in land, where the legal title was held solely in the name of the surviving spouse, bear the burden of proving that subsequent purchasers for value had notice of their equitable claim.
Facts:
- E. B. Bluitt acquired a parcel of land on April 13, 1907, while married to his wife, Rebecca.
- The land was community property, but legal title was vested in E. B. Bluitt's name alone.
- Rebecca Bluitt died in May 1908, survived by her children, who are the plaintiffs in error.
- E. B. Bluitt later remarried a woman named Sadie.
- On April 1, 1920, E. B. Bluitt and his second wife, Sadie, conveyed the land to Ross M. Scott and Johnson J. Fagan.
- The title to the land subsequently passed through a series of conveyances to the Commonwealth Building & Loan Association.
Procedural Posture:
- Commonwealth Building & Loan Association filed a trespass to try title suit against the heirs of Rebecca Bluitt in the District Court of Dallas County.
- The Bluitt heirs filed a cross-action, claiming an undivided one-half interest in the land inherited from their mother.
- The trial court entered a judgment awarding a one-half interest to Commonwealth and a one-half interest to the Bluitt heirs.
- Commonwealth Building & Loan Association, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Bluitt heirs, as plaintiffs in error, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do heirs asserting an equitable community property interest against a subsequent purchaser for value have the burden of proving that the purchaser had notice of their interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge German
Yes. Heirs who hold an equitable title to community property must prove that a subsequent purchaser for value had notice of that equitable interest to prevail. The court reasoned that when a conveyance of community property is made to only one spouse, that spouse holds the legal title, while the other spouse holds an equitable title. This deed does not provide notice to subsequent purchasers of the unlisted spouse's community interest. Therefore, to defeat the claim of a subsequent purchaser, the party asserting the equitable interest (in this case, the heirs) has the burden to prove the purchaser was not an innocent purchaser, meaning they had notice of the equitable claim. The court cited Mitchell v. Schofield for the principle that the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish a right to recover, which includes proving notice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal protection afforded to bona fide purchasers for value who lack notice of unrecorded equitable interests. It clarifies that the onus is not on the purchaser to discover hidden claims, but on the holder of the equitable interest to prove the purchaser's awareness of that claim. This principle promotes the stability and reliability of land titles as reflected in public records, making real estate transactions more secure. For heirs of a community property interest not named in a deed, this ruling makes it substantially more difficult to reclaim property that has been sold, as they must produce evidence of the purchaser's knowledge.
