Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
GROVERSELLERS *Tm”“n Gcnr”*L
Honorable BFuoe L. Parker
County Attorney
oray Oouaty
Pnmpa, Texar Ibar 8lrr Oplalon no. O-6848 Re, ~Whother pot-m
torest ou de am a valid the a de
You have requeoted opialon o ‘on the followlag Saotual
“The tax oollecto
his delinquent
emltles oud oalorcm tax ntorost are ot ooat laue <@&islon (Ls to Mhether s&h ‘,
ate are n valid lien analnat t e pro rt or agalast *the e&ate of the-de- 08 sed 1 d wner.”
of the Ooastltutlou of ‘Zexea, "The atuwal deseasmont made upon landed property shall be a special lion thereon; end - _ all DfODerty. both rocll end uo~son~l. Dcroilp$n& tnxveyynr shnll be llublctito the payment of all the seizure and sole for .-.. _ _..- ^.. ^” -.-_- .__.. ..- *2 Bonorable Bruc~e L. Parker, page 2
texes and =----T naltles due by such delinquent; and such property may e sold for the payment of the taxes and penalties due by such delinquent, under uu$h regulations as the Legislature may (Bnphasls ours) pr ovlde .
Under the deolrlon of the Supreme Court of Texas Jones v. Wllllanis, 45 3.W. (26) 130, 136, it was held that 1. “section 15 of Article 8 of the Constltu- term for ex- tlon provides a desorlptlve legal actions which maybe imposed by the Legislature Sor failure to pay property taxen, namely, ‘Den- altles, I’ a oommon-law term ,,lmplylng punishment. involved was whether or not In-
The questlcnthere terest end penalties oonstituted a part of the tax which- wature oould not remit by general law, in violation Seotion 56, Article 3, Constitution of Texas. The court held thst lntsrest was a penalty end that gelther formed a part the tgx so es to pr,event their .reysaion by genaral lawi
In the case OS City of San Antonio v. Toepperwlen, 104 Tax.’ 43, 133 S.bl. the question was involved es to - whether the provio5ons of Section 15 of Article 8. of thei
Constitution, supra, created such a lien aa.would attach to of 3ectlon 50, Article s homestead despite the provisions There was also involved the question of the Constitution.
ss to whether or not the purchaser of a homestead belonglog to a deoti.dent UDOO whloh delinquent taxes. lntcrest end penal- ties had aoorueh and who purchased suoh h&nestcad, subject the lien for all taxes which had accrued thereon, uas person- ally, lla@le for the payment. of such taxes and penalties.
Th8 oourt ,held es followsr
“3eotlon 15 of article 8 of the Constltutlon .of this state reads as follows: ‘The annual as- sesament made upon landed property shall be a speolal thereon, and all property, both reel and gersonal, belonging tax- payer shall be liable to seizure and sale for the payment of all the taxes atid panalties due by ouoh delinquent 1 and such property may be sold for the payment of the taxes end pcnalt 18s due. by suoh delinquent, under euoh regulations *3 # 252 page 3 Hoaornble Bruoe L:Pmker,
as the ~&lalF&tuFe m8y pPOVld8.’ The plain nnd : unmlatakable meaning of the language quoted sub- .' jeots all landed property in this state to sale
for assessment of taxes lawfully made thereon and for all pannltles provided by law which may noorue ou account of delinquencies in the pay- ment of such taX8S. 'All landed property' is a comprehensive phrase, end the Constitution makes no dlstlnotlon 8s to the use which ma be made 0r it. The language comprehends all 1 and8 3 whether it be 8 homestead or not. th3 pZ'8SUme
that it would Boot be contended that seotlon art. 8, Would not be suffloleut to make the home- stend liable Sor the penalties if the Conatltu- tloa did not contain seotloa art. 16. . . i" r-,
After dit%poslng of the question of the validity of for both the taxes and penalties, the oonstltutlonal aourt holds aa follows es to the personal lleblllty of the QliPOh8lWr. I
I The purohaser of property lncumber- 8d Wit'ikOiloe always buys it subject to a pre- lieu, but he does not, although he vious valid mny express.the 8fSeot of his purchase la terms by saying that he purchased It subject to the -~ lien, become per8Onally liable for the debt. Onrss Y. &umond, 39 9.W.. 610. *
In the case of Rlohey, et al., v. Hoor, 249 3.W. '172, 173, (Sup.) Chief Juetloe C\ireton, after quoting ‘&ctlon 15, Artiole 8, of the present Constitution, ar provlsioas supra, end sirnil-
of the Oonstltutlon of 1869, states es followat 'The dlfferenoe between these two provisions 1s apparent, but, in so far 88 a lien 1s given oa lnnd for taxes,, the language used 15 aubstantlal- ly identical, ehd in mo8nlng precisely the name.
Prior to the incorporation of the language uoed in aeotion 20, just quotbd, with reference to a the Constitution lien on land for taXe8,
1876, its meanin& had been definitely doolared b this court. As used ln the Constitution 69 it was held to mean that the lien provided
iOr ettnohed, not the property Of the taxpayer *4 - -- -7- ! ’ 233
f Ronorable Bruoe Li Parker, page 4
generally, but only to each separate tract or par- cel of land for the taxes assessed agalnst'lt. . . .
~. (Citing cases) By.lnoorporatlng this language in : 'the Constltutlm of, wlthout~mtorlal'change ~. : . '~ or modlfloatlon, the people la adoptlng the Con- " stltutlon neoessarlly adopted the oonetruotlon .~ ""."prevlously given it by the hlghest~court .of the -.~
state, and the language of'the present Constltu- '.. " tlon has the sama meaning which it had la that' 'of 1869 as declared by the Supreme Court. . . . (Cltiug onses)'
Therefore, it la the opinion of this department that the peualtles and lnttorest constitute a lien against the land, ilthoUgh the delinquent Humphry 1s deceased. How- ever, such lien attaches only against the portloular tract OS land upon which the taxes were delinquent, and does not lands or property of tho sstate. In other attach to other words, a lien sttachea against esoh tract of Land oalg for the taxes, interest and penalties against it. Benoe, there 1s no valid lien against the remainder
of the estate of the d&cadent, if any, unless the estate la or beoomss insolvent, la whloh event Article 7269, Revised Civil Statutes,. would be applioable. The entire estate of the decedent la liable for any deflol8nog judgzeat which sad aale of the landed might, exist rite~foreolosure property for thq delillQU8Ilt t8.x8U nlld pennltles.
Very truly yours ATTORNEY GEMERALOFTEXAS ‘, .c BY Aeelstant'