In Starkey v. Holoye, 536 S.W.2d 438, 439-40 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) Starkey and Safford's divorce decree awarded marital property to Safford and the minor children "for their use and benefit as their home, until the youngest of said children shall have reached the age of eighteen (18) years." Id. at 440. After the divorce, Safford remarried, and he and his wife later purported to convey the entire property to the Holoyes by a general warranty deed, which was subject to a vendor's lien assigned to United Mortgage Company of Texas. Id. Starkey sued Holoye and United Mortgage Company for title to an undivided one-half interest in the property, for partition of the property or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and, among other things, to have liens on the property declared to be of no force and effect as against her interest in the property. Id. at 439. The Holoyes filed a cross-action against Safford, and the trial court ultimately denied Starkey's motion for summary judgment. Id. On appeal, in addition to determining that the divorce decree awarded Safford a right to reimbursement for payments he made on the property after the divorce, the court of civil appeals reasoned as follows: "Since the property was not partitioned at the time of the divorce, Safford and Starkey became tenants in common or joint owners thereof, each owning an undivided one-half interest. With a deed on record showing the owners of the property to be Safford and Starkey, the Holoyes could not have purchased from Safford and his wife any greater interest in the property than was owned by Safford: an undivided one-half interest. Upon their purchase of Safford's interest, the Holoyes became tenants in common with Starkey. Starkey presently owns an undivided one-half interest, subject to a claim by Safford for reimbursement for any payments made on the property after the date of the divorce. Since she is still a joint owner of the property, and absent any agreement not to partition, Starkey's right to partition is absolute under the property code. Further, the Holoyes could not mortgage more of the property than they owned. Therefore, they could not mortgage Starkey's interest, and the lien asserted by United Mortgage Company is ineffective as to Starkey's one-half interest..." (Id. at 441.)