- 7 -
by the Supreme Court of Texas)4 for the proposition that a
purchaser under a contract for deed receives a mere equitable
right to complete the contract. One court of appeals in Texas
has followed Johnson, stating it is the controlling law in Texas.
See Club Corp. of Am. v. Concerned Property Owners, 881 S.W.2d
620, 626 (Tex. App. 1994). On the basis of these cases,
respondent argues petitioners are not entitled to a charitable
contribution deduction in 1994, the year that they entered into a
bargain sale of real property (contract for deed) with the
Church. Respondent argues the contract for deed petitioners
entered with the Church was an executory contract. The contract
contemplated petitioners retaining legal title to the property
until the Church had made all of the payments required.
Respondent concludes that because the contract was executory, the
gift was incomplete in 1994.
Petitioners rely on a line of cases5 which finds its origin
in the case of Leeson v. City of Houston, 243 S.W. 485 (Tex.
Commn. App. 1922). These cases stand for the proposition that
the purchaser receives equitable title to the property either at
4The significance of an opinion’s being adopted as opposed
to a judgment’s being adopted is discussed infra p. 8.
5Fant v. Howell, 547 S.W.2d 261, 264-265 n.5 (Tex. 1977);
City of Austin v. Capitol Livestock Auction Co., 453 S.W.2d 461,
464 (Tex. 1970); Graves v. Diehl, 958 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. App.
1997); Bucher v. Employers Cas. Co., 409 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex.
App. 1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011