Love v. Hoffman

499 S.W.2d 295, 17 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 5, 1973 Tex. LEXIS 238
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 19, 1973
DocketB-4067
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 499 S.W.2d 295 (Love v. Hoffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Love v. Hoffman, 499 S.W.2d 295, 17 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 5, 1973 Tex. LEXIS 238 (Tex. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case presents a problem of allocation of the appreciation in value of property between the purchaser from a homestead claimant and the judgment creditors of the claimant. Other questions were presented to the Court of Civil Appeals which have not been brought here. Consequently, since the judgment is correct, we can only order the application for writ of error refused, no reversible error.

The purchaser from the homestead claimant is our sole petitioner, contending that the excess beyond the protected exemption is determined at the time of the homestead designation and that this excess is not enlarged because of the subsequent appreciation in the value of the property. The Court of Civil Appeals, affirming the trial court, has held that the increased value as of the termination of the homestead is allocated between the exemption and the excess (subject to the lien and foreclosure) by the same fraction as the exemption ($5,000 by the constitutional provision in effect here) and the excess in value related to the total value at the time of the original homestead designation. 494 S.W. 2d 591. We agree with the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in its disposition of this question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Emma G. Barrera and Nickolas Barrera v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1995
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1995
Tarrant Bank v. Miller
833 S.W.2d 666 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
In Re Mitchell
103 B.R. 819 (W.D. Texas, 1989)
In Re Moody
77 B.R. 580 (S.D. Texas, 1987)
In Re Starns
52 B.R. 405 (S.D. Texas, 1985)
Dallas Power & Light Co. v. Loomis
672 S.W.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Steenland v. Texas Commerce Bank National Ass'n
648 S.W.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Stewart v. American Industrial Linings, Inc.
640 S.W.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Gill v. Quinn
613 S.W.2d 324 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
McGahey v. Ford
563 S.W.2d 857 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
O'NEIL v. MacK Trucks, Inc.
533 S.W.2d 832 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
499 S.W.2d 295, 17 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 5, 1973 Tex. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-hoffman-tex-1973.