OFFICE OF TREATTORNEYGbjSJERALOl"
TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable B. F. MolSee
County Auditor
Rldalgo County
Edinburg, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. C-1170
Rer Land aold by the State to
an individual, and later
forfeited and ~epoeeeeeed
by the State is not sub-
$i9yt t0.a lien r0r tare8
that aoorued.while it was
privately owned.
This‘ia in reply to your letter, whzloh is as fol-
lowa:
“The state sold a eeotion or land
about thirty years ago whiehwas never
paid out by the purohasert The etate
hae now advised the present owner o$
the equity that they ea$eot to oa
the sale for non-payment. county%:
state tares have acoumulated again3t
this property since 1919. Please ad-
vi44 the etatue of our taxee.again?t
thla piece of property when the state
reoover~ this land."
We aaeume that this land was public free school
land, and was sold to an Individual by the State under.the
term of Chapter 3, Title'06 (Articles 5300 to WisO); and
that it will be forfeited and repoaseeaed by the State under
Artials 5320 of that Chapter.
Such land was not subject to taxation;while owned
by the State prior' to the aale to the individual, by virtue
of Article VIII;Seotion 2 of the Constitutioh of Texas,
and Article 7150, Subdivls~on 4, ,of the Revised Civil Stat-
utea.
Honorable B. F. McKee, Page 2
There can be no doubt that the land was subjeot
to taxation during the period it was owned by the individ-
Ual*
When the land is forfeited and repossessed by
the State, title vests in the State ahd it again has the
statue it had bbrore it ~waa sold. Lawless vs. wright
(Clv. App.) 86 5. W. 1040; Houston 011 Company vs. Reese-
Corriher Lumber Compahy (Civ. App.) l81 S. W. 745.
Aa we understand It, you deeire to know the
statue of the delinquent taxee due the ooimty when the
State reposstieses the land. We think that question ie an-
swered.by’the rule of law in the case of State VS. Stovall
(Clv. App.), 76 8. W. (2d) 206 (writ refused) in whioh it
wae held that land that had reverted to the State wan not
.subject to seizure and sale to satisfy delinquent aohool
taxes owed on it by the individual from whom the State had
obtained it, and the Court, in that case, said:
“et contends in this oon-
neotion tuna% ~‘though real property may
be ~charged 4th a lien for unpaid tares
duly and legally levied by the state or
by a county, munfofpality, or sohool
district, when thereafter the legal
title to such property is aoquired by
or veste in ‘the state, and the sdme is
used by it ‘r0r.a publio purpoim, all :
nt proc8edihga to oolleot euoh
hforclng such lien are without
0ff0Gt Andyvoid. The iseue of law pre-
eented by appellant*8 contention ie ap-
parently one of firat impression in this
state, but it is supported by the great
weight of authority in other jwiBdiG-
tions e Foster v. City of Duluth, 120
Minn. 484, 140 N. W. 129, 131, par* 2, 48
I,. R. A. (N. S.) 707; .Stat4 V4e bGk4, 29 N.
IL 148, 219 P. 790, 792, pai. 1, 30 A. Li
R, 407, and note page 413; Reid v. State,
74 Ind. 252; State v. Maricopa County,
36 Ariz. 347, 300 P. 175; Lauren ..V.. We-,
100 Miea. 335, 56 So. 431, 452,;~.; b , Ann+
Gas, 1914A, 169;.State v. Snohozlsh Coun-
ty, 71 Wash. 320, 128 P.:667, 670; par;
2; Smith vi Santa Monica, 162 Cal. 221,
121 P. 920, 921; Oachet v. City oi New
.Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 813, 27 BOO 348;
Honorable B. F. McKee, PagO 3
Gasaway v. City of Seattle, 52 Viaash.444,
100 P. 991, 993 (bottom seoond oolwnh),
21 L. R. A. (N. Y.) 62; Independent Sohool
Diet. v. Hewitt 106 Iowa 663, 75 #. ‘U.
497, 498, par, 6; 26 R. C. L., pe 299,
Sea. eaS, and note ~2; 61 C. J., pa 945,
sec. 1215. Since tha judgment reoovered
by the appelles Ruek lndspendent eohool-
aistriot is for the colleatlon of: taxes,
and the title to the property again&
which it8 judgment Of foreclosure was
rendered hae paseed to and vested in
the Stats of Texae, ,and the. 8ame is now
being used by It for pub110 purpoeee,
euoh property le not now subject to
seizure and aale to satisfy such. judg-
mentew
The holding in the Stovall.oass maa expressly ap-
proved by the Supreme Court. of Texas, ap.a@5ng: through Jus-
tice Sharp, in the oaee.of’Ch$ldrelre County’vs. Stats,
127 Tax. 343.; 92 S. 8. (2d) .lOll;
Prior to the decisions in the Stovall oasa and
the Childrees County~oase, this department made a similar
ruling in Opinion No. 2SO0, dated January 25, .1930, written
by Aseistant Attorney General H. Grady Chandler, during tha
admlnletration of Attorney General Bobbltt, in which lt’was
aa8
“We .have been unable to find any
Texas authorities on the question rub-
mitted by you, Therefore, it become8
necessary to resort to ~the deoleioilrr
of other juriadiotlons. . .
“We believe o . l that under the
great weight of authority In thle ooun-
try, your. question should be answered
by saying that when the Houston Inde-
pendent School District acquired rsal
est&e to be used for public. @chool
purpoRes, the mamathereby be&ame fro4
.of any tax lien that might have prari-
ously existed againet the sama, end it
is no longer .eubject to taxation**
It is our @e&ion that the same rule applies te
the question before ue
Honorable B. I?. McKee, Page 4
We want it clearly understood that w4 have ouly
considerad this question from the standpoint or the sta-
tus of the taxes when theland is forfeited and repossess-
ed by the State; and we .are not 4xpr48Sing an opinion as
to the status of these taxes whsn the State re-sells this
land, or the purchaser rrctn whom it was forfeited re-pur-
chases or redeems the land.
Our answer to your question
Is that when this
land i8 rors4it4a ana r4poae4ee4d by the State,
it is not
subject to a lien for asy taxes that aooruad agaisst it
during the time it was privately owsad by an lnaivldual.
Yours very truly
Al'TORNEyGRN%ALOFTRU'
w l&mm
~(8) Ceoil 0. Rotrch
AfJsistant
APPRCVND BY OPINION COMKI=
BY (S) R. W. Fi, CRAIRUUT