Kenneth L. Musgrave and Etta D. Musgrave - Page 9




                                                - 9 -                                                  
                  By adopting the judgment in Leeson v. City of Houston,                               
            supra, the Supreme Court of Texas indicated that it approved                               
            neither the specific holding nor the reasoning of the commission.                          
            Thus, Leeson's value as precedent on the issue of property                                 
            interests conferred by a contract for deed appears, at first                               
            glance, questionable.                                                                      
                  The Supreme Court of Texas, however, has on two separate                             
            occasions cited with approval the specific portion of Leeson that                          
            states the purchaser under a contract for deed becomes the                                 
            equitable owner of the property.  See Fant 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).  Leeson, therefore,                          
            has also been approved on this point by the Supreme Court of                               
            Texas.                                                                                     
                  Moreover, the Supreme Court of Texas has cited Bucher v.                             
            Employers Cas. Co., 409 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex. App. 1966) for the                           
            proposition the “contract for sale effects change of ownership                             
            wherein the purchaser becomes [the] equitable owner of the                                 
            property while all that remains in the seller is bare legal                                
            title, more in the nature of security to guarantee payment than                            
            anything else.”  Criswell v. European Crossroads Shopping Center,                          
            Ltd., 792 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex. 1990).6                                                    

                  6The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas said:                                           
                                                                         (continued...)                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011