Opinion
No. 10-11-00297-CV
08-30-2012
CHRISTINA OWENS, Appellant v. JOHN HAWKINS, JANEL SUE SKRABANEK, JACK PAUL MOORE, WILLIAM RICHARD MOORE, AND BRUCE A. SKRABANEK, Appellees
From the 21st District Court
Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 25,890
ORDER
Christina Owens has filed a motion for rehearing. The motion addresses whether we erred when we concluded that parts of her sole issue were improperly briefed and presented nothing for review. Owens argues that simply because the authority cited was not factually identical, does not mean that the issue was improperly briefed.
We note in Owens' brief that Perry v Dearing, 345 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2003) is the only case cited that pertains to the argument that Hawkins' homestead was abandoned; and it is cited for the proposition that by permanently renting the property to others, Hawkins abandoned the homestead. We discussed and distinguished Perry in our opinion. The only part of the issue that pertained to renting the property was the renting of the log cabin. Based upon the brief, we did not understand that Perry was supposed to be authority for the argument that, by allowing William to build on the property or allowing William and Bruce to run cattle on the property, the homestead was abandoned or for the argument that the tax exhibit showed abandonment. Owens gave us no authority as to why this evidence should be considered abandonment of a homestead. Thus, we concluded that the issue was, in part, improperly briefed and presented nothing for review.
The only other case cited was Wilcox v. Marriott, 103 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet denied) for the general proposition that a homestead can be abandoned and for Owens' theory that Hawkins had the burden to prove a homestead.
Even if we did not conclude the issue was, in part, improperly briefed, we would still conclude that there is no evidence of abandonment. Although we did not understand the Perry case to be the support for these other arguments, Perry is, nevertheless, distinguishable, as analyzed in the opinion, and what Owens presented is still no evidence of abandonment.
Accordingly, we deny the motion for rehearing.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Rehearing denied