Truman v. Deason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If property be homestead in fact and law, lenders must understand that liens cannot be fixed upon it, and that declarations of husband and wife to the contrary, however made, must not be relied upon. They must further understand that no designation of homestead contrary to the fact will enable parties to evade the law and encumber homesteads with liens forbidden by the [Texas] Constitution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In Re Box · MBank Garland v. Skinner (In Re Skinner)

2. “This rule applies even if, as in the case sub judice, the homestead claimant has executed, acknowledged, and filed in the deed records an instrument designating a contrary homestead. One rationale for this somewhat paternalistic rule is a perception that to permit an estoppel to arise on the basis of a sworn declaration by a person living on property that the property was not his homestead would result in the routine execution of such affidavits by persons owning homesteads in order to obtain loans secured by homestead property for impermissible purposes, thereby rendering the constitutional homestead protection nugatory. This rule is also based on a recognition that many in financial difficulties will sign anything to obtain money from lenders, and that if not put to a duty of inquiry, many lenders will simply have the borrower execute a form affidavit stating that the property is not claimed as homestead. It is interesting to note that this is exactly what happened in this case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In Re Box

3. “We note at the outset that it is clear under Texas law that if a debtor’s property has been used for homestead purposes (i.e., occupied and used generally as a house), the debtor may not be es-topped from claiming the property as a homestead despite his or her fraudulent statements to the contrary.... Thus, under principles of Texas law, estoppel would not apply to [the debtor’s] homestead claim unless there are additional facts upon which [the creditor] can rely to estop [the debtor] from reaping the benefit of the fraud he has perpetrated on several persons, (citations omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. MBank Garland v. Skinner (In Re Skinner)