In re Estate of Casida, 13 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.).
Decedent’s Son and Step-Daughter disagreed over the homestead
character of Decedent’s house. Son and Step-Daughter essentially agreed
that the house had been Decedent’s homestead but Step-Daughter argued
that Decedent had abandoned the homestead for the last ten years of his
life because he lived elsewhere for most of the time. The trial court
agreed with Step-Daughter.
The appellate court reversed. The court indicated that “[w]hen homestead
rights are once shown to exist in property, they are presumed to
continue, and anyone asserting an abandonment has the burden of proving
it by competent evidence.” Casida at 521. The evidence showed that
although Decedent lived in various locations in another state, he did
return to the alleged homestead two to four times a year. In addition,
there was no evidence that Decedent purchased a home elsewhere or
removed his furnishings from the alleged homestead. The court thus held
that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Decedent
abandoned the homestead. The effect of the house being homestead
property then became relevant.
Son was unmarried and he remained with the family. Thus, the homestead
descended free from the claims of most of Decedent’s creditors. Probate
Code § 271. However, this fact did not give Son the right to remain in
the homestead because he is not one of the parties entitled to occupy
the homestead, that is, the surviving spouse or a minor child. Thus,
Step-Daughter may demand a partition of the homestead.
Moral: The existence of an unmarried adult child living in the homestead
will cause the homestead to pass free of a decedent’s debts but will not
give this child the right to occupy the homestead.