Texas Constitution talk:Article III, Section 56 and Estates Code talk:Section 114.102: Difference between pages

From TLG
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(Estate Code Section 114.002)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.
{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME} of the Estates Code–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Estates Code''.
I am a person who has lived this ill defined 114 estate code ....an 80 year old women, retired teacher.....Have spent 100's of hours on this one subject. Estate Code 114.  


==add ?==
I think A main problem with Texas right of survivorship deeds is evidenced in the Property Code Property Agreement signed at the closing for our house, where John and I gave to each other Right Of Survivorship" and there was a nebulous notice that the survivorship could be revoked by both parties ...or by one and noticed delivered to the other. We did not comprehend the power of that notice in barely readable print....that one of us could get away with doing that without the consent of the other person.We had devised our own agreement that included medical care, household finances death. We had had it for the prior house we had lived in in a different state notorized in that state.  I was out of the country on a tour with family and John's daughter was able to talk him into a Texas County law office.. pre arranged w/o notice to me or him.........before I even knew what happened weeks later, only by looking at the court records.... I no longer had survivorship in Johns half of the house  His daughter was the beneficiary on a TODD .....So I recommend that there should be a legal formality in breaking up a Right of Survivorship property agreement... a notice before its allowed to be legally taken away perhaps  being served formally and acknowledged before the survivorship can be given to another in state records.....
It was a "slap in the face" There must  be some formality. Im still shocked this could happen John and i lived together for 5 more years  making our co-habitation of over 20 years before he died.


City and County Home Rule in Texas John Pirie Keith 1951
There has to be a way....i would fight this but litagation is out of my budget...as told by the daughter who hold a TODD ....The whole house for sale on the open market...Now its  Get reaty for a right of partition....all this because the TODDwas inacted and I never had to even sign the the recind order
 
Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. 322, 328 (purpose of restriction)
 
Ayars' App., 122 Pa. 266, 277 !!!!!
 
Colley v. Jasper County, 337 Mo. 503, 85 SW2d 57
 
Owen v. Baer (1899) 154 Mo. 434, 479-493, 55 S.W. 644, 657-661
 
https://cite.case.law/pdf/967955/Owen%20v.%20Baer,%20154%20Mo.%20434%20(1900).pdf
 
==reviewed==
 
x Juliff Gardens v. TCEQ, 131 S.W.3d 271 (TCA 2004)
 
x Scurlock P. v. Brazos Co., 869 S.W.2d 478 (TCA 1993 denied)
 
x Suburban Ut. Co. v. State, 553 S.W.2d 396 (TCA 1977 nre)
 
x Inman v. Rr Comm., 478 S.W.2d 124 (TCA 1972 nre)
 
x Langdeau v. Bouknight, 162 Tex. 42, 344 S.W.2d 435 (1961)
 
x Wood v. Wood, 159 Tex. 350, 320 S.W.2d 807 (1959)
 
x Rios v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 609, 288 S.W.2d 77 (1955)
 
x Atwood v. Willacy Co. ND, 284 S.W.2d 275 (TCA 1955 nre)
 
x San Antonio v. State, 270 S.W.2d 460 (TCA 1954 refd)
 
x Lamon v. Ferguson, 213 S.W.2d 86 (TCA 1948)
 
x TG County v. Proffitt, 195 S.W.2d 845 (TCA 1946 woj)
 
x Jones v. Anderson, 189 S.W.2d 65 (TCA 1946 refd)
 
x Oakley v. Kent, 181 S.W.2d 919 (TCA 1944)
 
x King v. Sheppard, 157 S.W.2d 682 (TCA 1941 wm)
 
x Wood v. Marfa I.S.D, 123 S.W.2d 429 (TCA 1939 revog)
 
x Watson v. Sabine Royalty Co., 120 S.W.2d 938 (TCA 1938 refd)
 
x Brownfield v. Tongate, 109 S.W.2d 352 (TCA 1937)
 
x Ex Parte Heiling, 128 Tex.Cr.Rep. 399, 82 S.W.2d 644 (1935)
 
x State v. Hall, 76 S.W.2d 880 (TCA 1934 dismd)
 
x Womack v. Carson, 123 Tex. 260, 65 S.W.2d 485 (1933)
 
x Randolph v State, 36 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 1931)
 
x Stephensen v. Wood, 119 Tex. 564, 34 S.W.2d 246 (1931)
 
x NT Traction Co. v. Bryan, 116 Tex. 479, 294 S.W. 527 (1927)
 
x Harris County v. Crooker, 112 Tex. 450, 248 S.W. 652 (1923)
 
x Ward v. Harris County, 209 S.W. 792 (TCA 1919)
 
x Altgelt v. Gutzeit, 109 Tex. 123, 201 S.W. 400 (1918)
 
x Smith v. State, 54 TCA 298, 113 S.W. 289 (1908) (!dissent!)
 
x Logan v. State, 54 TCA 74, 111 SW 1028 (1908)
 
x Reed v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 177, 59 S.W. 255 (1900)
 
x Cordova v. State, 6 TCA 207 (1879)
 
x Opinion No. O-5326 (1943)
 
==brief==
 
almost every local law affects people residing outside the locality, the distinction between general and local laws would seem, under the doctrine of these cases, to be very indefinite
 
The prohibition against special legislation will be practically a dead letter. As it is the practice in the Legislature to yield and grant any local measure asked by any representative in that body, it is only necessary to demand a particular enactment for a special purpose, and if there is no constitutional constraint, it is passed as a matter of course. The legislative discretion in such cases extend only to the representations of the member who is interested in the passage of the bill.
 
All counties where the same circumstances exist must have the same form of government.
 
so that a law for one class can reasonably be expected to work equally well for every member of the class; while, if it works ill, it is almost certain to do so in every case, and that for some cause which lies deeper than the mere fact that the law is general. The number of places necessarily affected by a law prevents, moreover, the enactment of laws designed in the interest of one place only. If such a law be against the interest of the other communities affected by it, they will oppose its passage, and thus the unfair grant of special privileges will be prevented
 
there is a legitimate relationship between the size of a city and the privilege of detaching a portion of its territory and the statute, based upon such relationship, is a valid statute
 
The classification adopted must rest on real or substantial distinctions which renders one class, in truth, distinct or different from another class. There must exist reasonable justification for the class, that is, the basis of the classification invoked must be a direct relation to the purpose of the law.
 
Regarding population brackets: real or substantial distinctions which render one class distinct or different from another class and the basis of the classification must have a direct relation to the purpose of the law
 
It is important to remember that originally the prohibition against special legislation was an attempt to correct two main legislative abuses: (1) special bills were jeopardizing local autonomy; and (2) they were consuming too much of the legislator's time, at the expense of general or state-wide legislation. Today-three-quarters of a century later-those same abuses are still prevalent. 28 TLR 829, 842

Latest revision as of 22:19, May 4, 2024

{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME} of the Estates Code–discussion page}}This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page Section 114.102 of the Estates Code. I am a person who has lived this ill defined 114 estate code ....an 80 year old women, retired teacher.....Have spent 100's of hours on this one subject. Estate Code 114.

I think A main problem with Texas right of survivorship deeds is evidenced in the Property Code Property Agreement signed at the closing for our house, where John and I gave to each other Right Of Survivorship" and there was a nebulous notice that the survivorship could be revoked by both parties ...or by one and noticed delivered to the other. We did not comprehend the power of that notice in barely readable print....that one of us could get away with doing that without the consent of the other person.We had devised our own agreement that included medical care, household finances death. We had had it for the prior house we had lived in in a different state notorized in that state. I was out of the country on a tour with family and John's daughter was able to talk him into a Texas County law office.. pre arranged w/o notice to me or him.........before I even knew what happened weeks later, only by looking at the court records.... I no longer had survivorship in Johns half of the house His daughter was the beneficiary on a TODD .....So I recommend that there should be a legal formality in breaking up a Right of Survivorship property agreement... a notice before its allowed to be legally taken away perhaps being served formally and acknowledged before the survivorship can be given to another in state records..... It was a "slap in the face" There must be some formality. Im still shocked this could happen John and i lived together for 5 more years making our co-habitation of over 20 years before he died.

There has to be a way....i would fight this but litagation is out of my budget...as told by the daughter who hold a TODD ....The whole house for sale on the open market...Now its Get reaty for a right of partition....all this because the TODDwas inacted and I never had to even sign the the recind order

Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution_talk:Article_III,_Section_56&oldid=7770"