in the Estate of Consuella Perkins Ulbrich
04-14-00812-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 16, 2015Background
- Decedent Consuella Ulbrich died leaving surviving spouse Douglas J. Ulbrich; dispute arose over which property constituted the probate (survivor) homestead.
- Douglas claimed a 160‑acre Ulbrich Ranch in Medina County as the probate homestead; appellees asserted the San Antonio residence at 3939 Starhill was the homestead.
- The probate court entered an order setting aside 3939 Starhill as the surviving‑spouse homestead; that order was reversed on first appeal (memorandum opinion issued Jan. 15, 2014).
- On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment finding, as a matter of law, that 3939 Starhill was the decedent’s homestead, that the constitutional survivor homestead vested at 3939 Starhill, and that Douglas had abandoned/waived any homestead claim to other property.
- Douglas filed this reply brief asking the Fourth Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s summary judgment, arguing (1) the trial court’s findings misstated the standard and evidence, (2) genuine issues of material fact exist about whether the ranch was the probate homestead, and (3) claiming property‑tax exemption on the San Antonio house does not preclude asserting the rural probate homestead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ulbrich) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held (trial court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper designation of probate homestead | Ulbrich asserts the Ulbrich Ranch in Medina Co. was the probate homestead; summary‑judgment evidence creates genuine fact issues. | Appellees contend 3939 Starhill is the homestead supported by tax‑exemption filings and testimony. | Trial court held, as a matter of law, that 3939 Starhill was the decedent’s homestead. |
| Standard and burden at summary judgment | Ulbrich: nonmovant need only show genuine issues of material fact; he produced affidavits and documents creating issues. | Appellees: Ulbrich bore burden under Probate Code to prove his claim; evidence favors Starhill. | Trial court granted summary judgment for appellees (no genuine fact issue precluded relief). |
| Effect of claiming property‑tax exemption on San Antonio residence | Ulbrich: claiming tax exemption for urban residence does not bar asserting rural probate homestead. | Appellees: tax‑exemption filings indicate intent to treat Starhill as homestead. | Trial court treated evidence (including exemption) as supporting Starhill designation. |
| Waiver/abandonment of homestead rights | Ulbrich: even if Starhill was used, there is no established abandonment of the rural homestead; genuine issues remain. | Appellees: Ulbrich voluntarily abandoned Starhill and thus cannot transfer survivor homestead to ranch. | Trial court concluded Ulbrich had abandoned the Starhill homestead as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Reed, 48 S.W. 537 (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) (survivor has same homestead rights as spouses had before death)
- Hunter v. Clark, 687 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1985) (surviving spouse’s rights to probate homestead explained)
- Williams v. Williams, 569 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. 1978) (probate homestead characterized as life‑estate‑like right of survivor)
- Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1989) (nonmovant’s burden to produce evidence raising fact issues)
- Sparks v. Robertson, 203 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947) (cases discussing survivor homestead and its protections)