Article XVI, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution (discussion page)
Texas Legal Guide (texaslegalguide.com) is currently under construction.
This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page Article XVI, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution.
add ?[edit topic]
The constitutional provisions Zepeda relies on were enacted before LaSalle. None "contains . . . language that would indicate displacement of equitable common law remedies was intended," and as in LaSalle, "we decline to engraft such a prohibition onto the constitutional language."[25] Furthermore, since LaSalle was decided, § 50 has been amended twice, in 2013[26] and 2017,[27] but neither set of amendments added language addressing subrogation.
Zepeda argues that the availability of subrogation as a safety net erodes lenders' incentives to make loans that comply with all constitutional requirements and to promptly cure any defects. Freddie Mac counters that abolishing subrogation would result in a windfall to borrowers, that subrogation does not even make a lender whole because the amount of the subrogated first lien is usually less than the loan on which the borrower defaulted, and that abolishing subrogation would destabilize the Texas real-estate industry and increase the cost of borrowing money. Home-equity loans have been legal in Texas for about 24 years, but subrogation has been part of the common law for more than a century. On this historical and procedural record, we believe that revisiting the wisdom of subrogation in this case is unwarranted.
19-0712 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Zepeda
review[edit topic]
ImwodNorih Homeowners’ Asxxiation, Inc. v. Harris, 736 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1987) Brooks v. NortJiglen Ass ‘n, 141 S.W.3d 158,170 (Tex. 2004)
TRPTODA[edit topic]
Laster v. First Huntsville Props. Co., 826 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex. 1991) ("A mortgage or lien that is void because it was illegally levied against homestead property can never have any effect, even after the property is no longer impressed with the homestead character."); Harms v. Ehlers, 179 S.W.2d 582, 583 (Tex.Civ.App.–Austin 1944, ref'd) ("But there is an essential and controlling difference between loss of the homestead character of property by abandonment and termination of the homestead estate by death of the judgment debtor.").
Grant v. Marshall, 280 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tex. 1955) ("That statute is not ambiguous; its provisions are clear. Upon the death of Mr. Grant, his estate being insolvent, the homestead descended to his widow and children exempt from liability for the claims of all unsecured creditors."); Thompson v. Thompson, 236 S.W.2d 779, 788 (Tex. 1951) ("The homestead forms no part of the estate to be administered by the probate court, and an attempted sale by the probate court of the homestead for any purpose other than that permitted by the Constitution is void.").
note[edit topic]
1836: nothing regarding homestead protection
1845: SEC. 22. The legislature shall have power to protect by law, from forced sale, a certain portion of the property of all heads of families. The homestead of a family, not to exceed two hundred acres of land, (not included in a town or city, or any town or city lot or lots,) in value not to exceed two thousand dollars, shall not be subject to forced sale for any debts hereafter contracted; nor shall the owner, if a married man, be at liberty to alienate the same, unless by the consent of the wife, in such manner as the legislature may hereafter point out.
1861: SEC. 22. The Legislature shall have power to protect by law from forced sale a certain portion of the property of all heads of families. The homestead of a family, not to exceed two hundred acres of land, (not included in a town or city;) or any town or city lot or lots, in value not to exceed two thousand dollars, shall not be subject to forced sale, for any debts hereafter constructed; nor shall the owner, if a married man, be at liberty to alienate the same, unless by the consent of the wife, in such manner as the Legislature may hereafter point out.
1866: SEC. 22. The Legislature shall have power to protect by law from forced sale, a certain portion of the property of all heads of families. The homestead of a family not to exceed two hundred acres of land (not included in a town or city) or any town or city lot or lots, in value not to exceed two thousand dollars, shall not be subject to forced sale for any debts hereafter contracted, nor shall the owner, if a married man, be at liberty to alienate the same, unless by the consent of the wife, in such manner as the Legislature may hereafter point out.
1869: SECTION XV. The Legislature shall have power, and it shall be their duty, to protect by law, from forced sale, a certain portion of the property of all heads of families. The homestead of a family, not to exceed two hundred acres of land, (not included in a city, town or village,) or any city, town or village lot, or lots, not to exceed five thousand dollars in value, at the time of their destination as a homestead, and without reference to the value of any improvements thereon, shall not be subject to forced sale for debts, except they be for the purchase thereof, for the taxes assessed thereon, or for labor and materials expended thereon; nor shall the owner, if a married man, be at liberty to alienate the same, unless by the consent of the wife, and in such manner as may be prescribed by law.