OFFICEOFIHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
County rttora4y
81 Plmo* %xaEaa
Dear Sir,
eanind
Dollara (~3,000.00)or the 81).
of all rssibent homeataac¶sas
shall be exempt froa all taxa-
provided that this
roable to that portioa
of the Stats ad valoren taxes levied ror State pur-
poses ramitted within those oounties or other poLit-
lcal subdivisionnow reoeirfag any remission Op
State taxes, until the srpfrationor auoh period Of
red.ssloa, &lea6 before the expiration Or-auoh
period the beard or ~evarnia~ body of any oae or
aore of suoh oou&~les or political subdivisions
:,.
Hoaorablo ~&nest Guirrn - Paga 2
shall hato oertifibd to the State Comptrolbr
that the need ror such rem.lsslooor t4xe4 has
oeesrd to exist in a&oh oountr or polltloel
,aubdirislon; then thia Seotioa shell b44ome
epplionbleto eeoh aouatp or ,polltlaalsub-
division as'and wh4a it shall beaoau within
the provisions h4zwi.w
It will ba aott that the abov4 prorislons of our
Coastltutloaprovides that th exomptlon shall apply to
43.3.
r4aldmnthonusteads “aa saw doriaed by law.* It was
held la the oam or &%GJO v. Omen, SO Tar. 483, speJrix43
through ASsoaieti Justi Bomer, that 6 oingle p4r6oa
oould be the h4ad of a ismlly and as such o1al.me hone-
steed. The oaurt'ia ssid oeae sat out the rollonlag~rul4s
to dstemine whether or aot the ral~t~oashlpof 4 ratily,
aa oontemplatedb;rlam; 4xlst.s:
"1. St ie on4 or a eo4iel status, not
of m4re aoatmot.~
9. La@& or pioralobligation on tk4
head to support-'the
otker UmaberS.
"3. Cdrmspoadln(:state of dependenoe
on the part 0r.thO other asabers ior this ..,
,,.
atlpport."
Seotlon:3Q; tilble 16, of oar Coaetltutl~a
provides,aaang other $hfags,*Tk4hws4tead of a raclLl* / ,..~
,'
shell be aad fa bereby~proteotod from roroed SdLe, for .'
the payment of all debt;0except . . . the taxes due :.
thereon... ."
S;otioa 5i or said Artlois derinae a horn-
stead,;$a&ofares w4 ar4 hew 6oao4rkad,as ialLorr8:
.
"'~"Tke homestead la 4 aSty, towa or tl3-
lago, ihall aoneiet or'lot. o$lcW, not to
oxoeed in w&as fits tkawead ~&ollars,at the
fhs bnutataad,
time OS thair deaignation,,tis
without refermss to the i4lne ot any 5.#provs-
Bents thereon; proM.d&d.,tkat'th4 &me ahalL
ba used for the purpose,of 4 home, 0~~as f~
Honorable %mes* Ouinp - PaiXe3
pleoe to exerolae the calling or busineaa of
the head of 8 taz&lp."
Under the above quoted taOta end numoroua deaf-
alons of our appellate courts, we think there can be no
question but that the daughter and her aged and depenbent
mother oonatituted ? TamllyW and the house, together with
t&e lot or lots ua4d in aonneotlon tharsnlth,owned br tho
dePghter,,$A*hioh they lived, ooAatltutedthe *resideat home-
stead* of th4 family while it wee 60 oeoupiad, wltliin the
ma~lng of those terns as mod in.the ooAatftutlona1provi-
SiOAS above quoted, and, 66 auuh resident homestead, it was
exemp~trrom taxation to the aam extent es any other real-
dent homestead la exempt under ths.provialoAaof Sootion l-a
or Artiol4 XXII or the COAatitUtiOA. Roco v. Qreen, 50
Tex. 489; Vaolisv. Buckley, 52 ?!eX.6411 Barry v. iTale
(CIV. App.), 21 3. W. 7831 iiraught IcGo. v. Stellworth
(clv. ~pp.), 100 S.,7V.188; Hutah4nridereta1 v. Smith
(COIL App.) 2l$25; W. 205; H'oodrat al v. Alvarado State
sank (sup. Ct.), 19 S. 7J.(26) 35; Daniel v. Cook et al.
(civ. ~pp.1, 70 S..W. (26) 102b; 2doCuaker v. Field (Cl*.
Apa,.], 76 S. W. (26) 816; StanilardPevl,ngCo. v. Toloon
et al. (Clr. Agp.), 86 25.W. (2d) 789; Chamlee V. Chaalee
(Civ. App.), ll> S. WA.(2d) 290~ Rea~atruotlon Firmno.
Corporationv. BArgesa (Clr. APR.), 155 8. Y. (2~3)977, and
authorltlesthere oited.
So tar 81)wa have beea able to ssoetitaia the
eaot qaestion hae not baen preaentfnd to our oourts, nor
gvBpomtbeen eble to find any oaao frormother jurisdlotWt6
1 l
The ~ueatiaa 61 whether the hmeatehd right6 of
i the daughter ooAtinued art,erthe death of her mother la
the real question with whioh we ~a24 here oonoarned. xr
au& rights uontlaued, then your qubationneat be answered
I b the affl.rmative, ior one of those ri&ts Is the exemption
of the hoaeatead from taxation to the extent provided iA
Section l-a ot Artiolo 8 of the COAstitittiOA.
?igthink that the oa64 of Wood6 v. Alvarado State
BaAk. suprs, a6 oonstruedIn Daniel v. Cook, supra, has
, ,\
Honorable Ernest Otinn - Page 4
definitelysettleii this question.
Irr Woo&o v. Alrarado State Bank, it was said3
*In view ot our oonatltutionaland statutory
prorlslons conoernlng homesteadrights, ue have
oonoluded that in this state the hameatead 1s to
be rugarCed as an aatete oraatad not only for the
proteotlonof the faidly as a rholo, but ror the
units ot tha family, inoludlng those who surrire,
and embracing t&o hesb.or the rmailp at the time
or its dissolution,whether the dlesolutlonhas
been brought about by death or by dleperaal,as
dlstixguirphed from a ~ere.:prlvllegeaocorded the.
head or the rmy ror the banerft or the rsmilp
as a whols."
mit30piniolr or the court or cirir, hppedii,275
a. Y. 157, oontalns,a.rulLstatement or the raots in the
0880 rrcfifiwhioh.the roregoing quotationwas.taken,
Wn May 31,: 1901, a divorce was &atcted in ~.;..;
the dlstrlat aourt or Johnson county,~TaL:ln
raror 0r~carrie Woods againat 3. Di'WoWs; YAt
the time sa.idClvoras was granted, the said
partieo, beIn@ husband and wire, had two ~hll.dren.
Pearl, about 10 years or age, and a boy between
8 .qiid 9 years.ot age, en+ bad, with said ahfldren,
been oacupylng aa their homestea &bout'104 acrea /
or land, whlch.raa Uha aepaaste property or ap- ,'
pellant 3. D.,Eoods. In the alvoroe decras this
104 acres ori lanfl,was set apart to.ap?eUant J. D. Xoods
as his separate property, and the oustody or the two
ohlldren was awarded to their mother, Carrie Woods.
The ohlldren, howtavur,continued to live 011the
home plaoe with their rather, 2, 3 or 4 years, un-
til Pesrl Woodrr, the girl, was 12 0T 13 years or
age, when.they both want to Oklahoma. Paall, the
girl never returned to live with her rather, but
oontlnuedto live In Oklahoma,where ahs married
in 1906 when about 14 gears or age. The boy, In
about 1906, returned to Texas, and 12adeseveral ,:
Eonorable Zrnaat OtiDn - Page 5
tripe fram Texas to Oklahoma, llring with
his rather crpart or ths tims aridelmwhrro a
part of the time, until.he was about 21 gears
or age, whan ha nerrlod an4 ssttlad ln Oklahoma.
The boy has beea mrrled and litlng in Oklahema
10 years. The girl haa beemmarried and living
with her husbsnd in Oklahostaior the last 18 or
20 yeurs. Butwean the data the dlvoroe was
granted l.n1901 an4 about 1907, and while eai4
children, or at least one or thsm, wa8 living
with appellanta part of the tIma, he bought
sermal mall traots of land, aggregatingabout
124 aorau, adjofninu said OriginaL 104 uares,
making a total or about 22& aares, sl1 in one
block. Appellant has never remarried, and ror
the last 10 or 12 year% ha8 llvrd on said land
alone.
SOn July 3, 1919, appoilant J. 0. '#004s
ereoutad his not& in the sum ot'fM.327,due and
payable to the appellse bank on Jull 3, 1920.
On Isarab22, 1920, a little more than three
months berore the maturity or eai4 note, appellant
exoouted a deed oonteylng all of said land to his
daughter, Era. Pearl ?ials,who resfder tith her
husband at Fairview, Okl,, The oonsideration
stats4 la this deed wa8 "410 paid and lore an4
arzeotlon for daughter, an% settling with hsr ior
her interaat in slyesta$e, valued et &OOO.*
*Appellant havtng made default in the'pay-
nrentof said note, eppellae bank &ought suit
on sam, ana~reootereca judgment against ap-
pellant ror $8,582. Thereafter, the bank cauoed
an axeoutlon to be irsued an4 levied upon 214
aorea of said 228 aere6, whereupon appellant and
hla daughter,Psarl Hale, an% husbaad,~prooured a
taqorerp lnjunotionrestraining the sale. On the
trial or this InjunotloiLoaaeberorr..ttreaourt
without a jury, the oourt perpetuatedsaid fajuno-
tion aa to the 101 atsres,the land appellant owned
at the time the divorae WAS granted, but 4Xssulvad
said lnjunotion as to the remainder of the 214 aares,
OP 8pprolimat.s~110 acres, the land aaquir64
by appellant ester the ditoroe ~8 grant&.
Both aidea exoepted to the judgment ot the court.
Th6 068s iE4befor Ue on rt3ei~~erltS by epp6&Wlt,
eontendingthe whole of maid land woe 6XOStptto
J. D. 3oods aa a holwstsad, and theretore not
8Ubj66t t0 SX66Utbl 8Jld, OD 0P08e*&Wm6lltS
by Egp61166, 6O?it6nd& n0 Q8Zt Of maid lead U86
6x611iptto app6lf8nt a8 8 hom6stead.*
Th6 Supreme Court hold that YVooodew&e entitled
to his ZO&aors hmertead, and that the triti court #would
have set 8ptWt that amount et land to him or his t6nd668.”
Th6 fact@ %l &Id81 P. Cook, 8tlpl'8,,8s 86t OUt
in the Opinion 6i th6 OOUPt, are ae Xollow~r
“b t&i8 SUit bZOU<by kf.5.’I>a&ti61
against we. bt.J. C0ok, a widow, the plaintiff,
among 0th6f *hinge,mmght to roreeloscr8n at-
taohrnsntlien upon 125 aore of lead in Jonee
oounty, b~langiag to the defendant.
“arrs.Cook derend6d OLIthe gtouqid that
tha land waa h6r hofia6stead,and ior~timt.reeaon
6XISS#. Ilrr.Cook, on or about Sdptenber 17,
1907, after Bh@ Bee-6 8 widow, aOqUbBd, by
pUl'0~8S6. th6 ;LSDd in qUestiOn, and togethsr
with eight m$nor children or hefa maoredupon tmd
OOOUpi6d it 66 (Ihome. She 8Ll6g6d that:it
oontinued t0 b6 her holaeetsadUp tO ths,$islsOf
the 16~ of the attaehmmt.
"In reply to,thl?icontention,D&niel pleaded
that Era. Cook had'long sizllre
abandoned the
prOp6rty es her hOmeotead, and had BOqUired, . . . -,
owned, end livsd tiponbth6r land.ln Taylor oountg
end 61eewh6re,by rsaaoonwhereof th6 land in
oontrovereyhad long ~*inOeloot if%.hm66t6ad
ohaTaOt6r.The 6Videnoe 8hOW8d that &a. Cook, With
two utunarrfeddaughters,aov6d rramthe farm to
Abilene in 192i+,end had not since oooupied the
IIonomble -3l68t &Ii= - PafZe7
r8FR in qU98tiOL At the the suit was filed
Mrs. Cook nith hsr alily remaining unmarri6d
daUght6r w88 liting nith another Prarri6ddSU&i-
ter in CallforuLa. Th6 ahI& dau&hter W8S
about 27 Y66.W Of age.
Vhe jury to whoa the ame ~68 8ubmitt6d
On 6pSOi8% 18SWS rOWid tbet: ((I)m8. Cook
with WiMXFl6d m-bore 6f he? fey had OO-
oupi6d the iarpS a8 a hOme8tead tar several
yeara prior to 1923; (b),that ah6 at all tkaes
ainoe l923 had b66n the h68d of 6 f8IsilpOofl-
sisting of herself and ummrrled d6pendent ohild
or ohildren; (a) that ehe had at 6ll tlm+a sinoo
1923 intended to xuwe with th6 umnarri6d de-
pendent ps41DbBr, OF i!~~berS,of h6r~f8iUilybaok
tOthefamnandaulk6 it a &v3l%mmnth6kaeiOr
herlrslfand suoh~uunarrl6dde sndent mamb6r,
or a6abersj &her fPnilyr (dP and that Mrs.
Cook, 8e the h6aQ or a raraiiy, n6ver intsndod
at any ttie to US6 8nnyof the property aoquir6d
by h6r ;a Abil6ne as P p6?6UUi6~t holDsfor herself
and unnmrried dependentnmmber, Of PBliIbW8,or
her faally. The trial judge, aft6r rsfuaing a
F%qU88t6d p6F6UiptOr~iMtl7lOtiOufOF .D8n%61,68TS
'judgewntfor Lls6.Cook, danring foreclosor6~ot the
8ttadUWnt 1i6ll. Fran this judgzmnt,Daulel hea
appea;led.*
That p8ti'Of th6 OOWt*ll 6piniOZIptWt8illins
t0
the qU8stiOuU6.1116here OOlISid6Fing1~6aS rOllOW8:
We ar6 further of the opinion that since
th6 UnOOKltrOV0rt8d svidenoe showed ,thot prior
to 1923 th6 property had been the homatead of
34~8.Cook, and sine6 the jury found, based Upon
6Vid6nll6 the 6UffiOf6nW of whioh i8 LIOtdireotly
ahalleng6d,Chet at all tim68 since and prior to
the tine She ir~oved away frcraa
the faX%Uah6 in-
t8nd6d t9 mov6 baok and IS.ak6 it her horn@,and
that in the aoqtisitionand us6 of other propcarty
in Abilene sho never intend6d to mice the latter
-- -
ilonorable
&meet Quinn - Page 8
her permanent home, her atatriaas to the
buaestead ereaagtion heroin asserted was the
sane a8 if she had hexer nrovedaway. In
other words, ahe aontinuouslyoooupied the
property as her homestead up to end iuoluding
the time of the levy oi the attaohnent, If
so, thetpestlon lat 'Was it neaessar~ that
there be any remlning aowtituent of the
raplily other thaa Mm. Cook her8elrt This
question, we think, must be regarded as settled
by the opiuion in Moods v. Plvarado State B~J~c,
118 Tax. 586, 19 8. X. (26) 35. Counsel for
appellee, In arent, nought to ahor that the
. difWU88iOn of this point in said opinion uaa
dlota. A dlatinotionia argued, baaed upon
Bhetker the houestead Is aequfred wklle both
husband and wire are lirlug, or by one OS the
apouseo artierthe mcrlage relation, for any
reason, has been dissolved. It ia,uell oet-
tled, and seem to be eoneeded, that it the
homestead la aoguired at a time when husband
and wife are llvlhg together, the exemption
continue8 80 long a8 it remain8 oooupied. re-
gardless or the raat that no aonstituent members
or the ramllr remain, other than the eurvltor.
%e are unable to 8ee any good reasoo for mahiog
the distlnotionmggested. The Suprem CoUrS*8
opinion rWmred to, we think, nust be regarded
as holding that tbere.18 ho euek diatinotton.
In that aaso the land in oontroversywas aaquired
after dissolutionor the z#arriagerelation. The
manner OS dissolutionis unimportant. The murt*8
opinion oould not be correct on the facta.of that
case ii the distlnotionhere lnsltited upon should
be held to exist. The disauectrion or the point
was, therefore,we think, not tierelydiOta.”
It seem to be tke sattled law or this St&e
that when a honestead is ones estsblishedthe right8
belonging thereto do not eeaee to exist by reQ8On Of the
death or dispersal of the constituentmembers Of the
ranily, but suck right.8continue ror the protection or
the slirvlvingunite or the Tam.ily,inaluding the heed
‘honorablelbne8t Ooirrn - Page 9
02 the faatlly. Xn the Instant oaae, the unmrrled adult
deu@ter and her mother, WiIilO1iVing together, aOJISti-
tuted a family, with the daughter as Its head. Therefore,
we see no good reason to hold that the death of the mother
would here the erreat of dissolvingthe homestead rights
of the daughter that had been aoquirad uhlle the mother
was liring. The faat that the dsughter is the sole aur-
vlvor or the family Is uuinportantand lnauffiaient to
warrant a omtrasy aonoluslon.
We anmer your question in tkb afU.rmatlVe.
Youra very truly