THEATTORNEY GENERAL
oFTEXA~
Honorable Robert S. Calvert opinion NO. c-725
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Capitol Station Re: Whether a family rela-
Austin, Texas tlonshlp is necessary
Inorder to claim a
homestead exemption from
the ad valoren tax, and
Dear Mr. Calvert: related question.
You requested an opinion from this office upon the
following questions:
“(1) Is a family relationship
necessary to have available to a pro-
perty owner the exemption from Ad
Valoren Taxes?”
Further, if the answer to question (1) is in th.e affirma-
tive, you have requested us to answer the following question:
“(2) A husband and wife own a
home and are allowed the homestead
exemption from State Ad Valoren Tax.
Neither has any kin. Later they divorce,
with the husband receiving title to the
hone in the settlement and he continues
to reside alone in the home. May he
legally continue to receive the homestead
exemption from State Ad Valorem Tax year
after year?”
The pertinent Texas constitutional provisions which govern
the homestead exemption are Article XVI, Section 50; Article
XVI, Section 51; Article VIII, Sections l-a and l-b. The con-
trolling statutory provision is Article 7048a, Section 2, Vernon’s
Civil Statutes.
Article XVI, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution provides,
In part, as follows :
“The homestead of a family shall be,
and Is hereby protected from forced sale,. . ,”
-3486-
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 2 (C-725)
Article XVI, Section 51, which describes the kind and
character of the property of which the homestead shall con-
slst, reads as follows:
“The homestead, not in a town or
city shall consist of not more than two
hundred acres of land, which may be In
one or more parcels, with the inprove-
nents thereon; the homestead In a city
town or village, shall consist of lot,
or lots, not to exceed In value five
thousand dollars, at the time of their
designation as the homestead, without
reference to the value of any improve-
ments thereon; provided, that the same
shall be used for the purpose of a home,
or as a place to exercise the calling or
business of the head of a family; prc.lf~ded
also, that any temporary renting OT the
homestead shall not chrge the chamter of
the sane, when no other homestead has been
acquired e ”
Article VIII, Section l-a of the Texas Constitution prc-
vldes, in part, as. follows:
“From and after January 1, 1951, no
State ad valoren tax shall be levied upon
any property within this State for general
revenue purposes. From and after January
1, 1951, the several counties of the State
are authorized to levy ad valorem taxes
upon all property within their respective
boundaries for county purposes except the
first Three Thousand Dollars ($3,OCC) value
of residential homesteads, not to exceed
thirty cents (3%) on each One Hundred Dollars
$y,a;~;;;;;;~ In addition to all other
” (Emphasis added
throughout unless othekwise stated).
Article VIII, Section l-b of the Texas Constitution pro-
vides as follows:
“Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) of
the assessed taxable value of all residence
homesteads as now defined by law shall be
exempt from all taxation for all State purpose.”
-3487-
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (C-725)
The statutory enactment, Article 7048a, Section 2, states:
“From and after January 1, 1951,
the
several counties of the State be
and they are hereby authorized to levy,
assess and collect ad valoren taxes
upon all property within their resnective
boundaries for county purposes,
the first Three Thousand Dollars
value of FesidetitiaI
Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed. In the
case of City of Wichita Falls v. Cooper, 173 S.W.2d 777, (Tex.
Civ.App. 1943, error ref.) the court stated at page 780:
“It Is the universal rule in this
state that the Constitution has definitely
provided for every form of exemption of
property from taxation; that If an exenp-
tlon Is so made it cannot be enlarged upon
either by the Legislature or by the courts.
Some courts have gone far enough to say
that if there Is a reasonable doubt as to
the meaning of the Constitution In matters
of exemption, the doubt will be resolved
against the exemption, for exemptions from
taxation are not favored by the Constitution
nor by the Courts In their construction.
it f Dal1 Cochran (T 1 A 166
S.Wy ?2, wriyrzhused); J&ese~:cW~il~%
121 T;?xl 94, 45 S.W.2d 130, 79 A.L.R, 983:
11 .Art. 8, Sect. l-a (as amended in 1933)
la lik&wise specific and self enacting to the
extent therein stated. There, $3,cxUof assessed
taxable value of the residencehomestead Is
exempt ,:fron all taxation for all purposes’
. . d .
The exemption provided for under Article VIII, Sections
l-a and l-b is limited to a residence homestead and does hot
apply to the business homestead. Attorney General Opinion
No. 0-1800 (1940).
-3488-
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 4 (C-725)
A person claiming the benefits of
.~ the homestead exenp-
tions must prove that there is a familial relatlonshlp In
order to obtain the benefits of the exemption. In Plough.
Inc. v. Moore, 56 S.W.2d 681, (Tex.Cir.App. 1933, error r(Ef.),
tne court states at page 681:
In order to obtain the benefits
of the lx&&Ion, the family relationship
or status must exist among those claiming
the benefits of the exemption. This nec-
essarily presupposes a condition of depenm
dence, either in law or fact, by one or
more members of the group upon the other
as the head of the family. Constitution,
Art. 16, 850; Revised Statutes, art. 3833;
Rzao v. Green, 50 Tex. 483, ‘19% Howard v.
Marshall 48 Tex. 471, 477; Whltehead v.
Nickelson, 48 Tex. 517, 529.
II
. . , .
II The mere fact that the two
plaintifiz’were associated together . . .
did not entitle then to have such pro-
perty exempted from forced sale either
as a business or residential homestead
In the absence of the existence of the
farnil-y relationship. . . ,”
In the often cited case of Roco v. Green, su ra the
general rules to follow to determine whether a Tp-I
anillal B-
tionship exists, as contemplated by law are as follows:
“1. It Is one of social status, not
of mere contract.
“2. Legal or moral obligation on the
head to support the other members.
"3. Corresponding state of dependence
on the part of the other members
of this support 0”
In Bahm v. Starcke, 89 Tex. 203, 34 S.W. 103 (I896), at
page 105, Chief Justice Gaines states:
“The divorce destroys the particular
family, the existence of which gave the
right of exemptions, and hence destroys
the right of homestead as to that family
. . . . Section 50 -roof the Constitution-7
-3489-
. .
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 5 (C-725)
exempts ‘the homestead of a family’, and
the general rule is ‘no fanil
stead’. The worddiaz’o?-
family’ ha;e a well-defined meaning, and
are not open to a construction which
would Include the homestead of a sinple
oerson without a fanil~.”
Based upon the language of the constitutional provisions,
the statutory enactment, the case law and Attorney General’s
Opinion No. 0-180C (1943), we hold that a familial relation-
ship must exist In order for a property owner to be entitled
to the residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxes
under Article VIII, Sections l-a and l-b of the Texas
Constitution and Section 2 of Article 7C48a.
Since question (1) has been answered In the affirmative,
it becomes necessary, pursuant to your request, to answer
question (2).
The cases of Bahn v. Starcke, su ra; Tanton v. State
National Bank, 125 Tex. 16 79 S.W h33 '(1935)Clack v.
w1111 189 S.W.2d 533 (4ex Clv,App. 1945 no writ
&erg v. Hubbard, 326 S,W.2d’605 (Tei.Civ.App.
no writ hist.) stand for the proposition that a divorce
destroys the h&nestead exemption and a single person without
any dependents is not entitled to claim a homestead exemption.
In accordance with the foregoing court decisions, It Is
the opinion of this office that the familial relationship hav-
ing been dissolved by divorce and there being no minor children
or dependents, the homestead exemption cannot be allowed.
SUMMARY
---B-e-
A familial relationship Is necessary
in order to obtain a homestead exemption to
the extent provided In Article VIII, Sections
l-a and l-b of the Texas Constitution and
Section.,2 of Article 7048a, V.C.S. Under the
facts presented, the divorce decree dissolved
the homestead exemption and the property owner
should not be allowed the exemption of the
residential homestead from ad valoren taxation
-3490-
. .
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 6 (C-725)
to the extent provided in Article VIII
Sections l-a and l-b of the Texas Consti-
tution and Section 2 of Article 7o48a.
Very truly yours,
WAGGONER CARR
Attorney General
BYE
'Terry Reed ~Goodman
Assistant
TRG:ced
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
John Banks
Bill Allen
Marietta McGregor Payne
John Pettit
APPROVEDFOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL
By: T. B. Wright
-3491-