Case Information
*1 Gerald C. Mann .-?xs-rxx. TEXAS
February 6, 1939
Hon. James i:'. Swarts
County Attorney Van Horn, Texas Opinion NO. 0-265
Dear Sir: Re: Land purchased by State st tax sale
This office is in receipt of your letter of January 30, 1939, wherein you advise that in 1933 the State boll&t certain land
oreclosure for delinquent taxes. Period of redemption an6 the land was not redeemed.
ale of the land by the State is contemplated, and you er the purchaser will take the land free OX' taxes ac- o the foreclosure sale, and (2) whether such purchaser land free of taxes assessed since the purchase by the Artic~ised Civil Statutes, reads: lots which have been returned rted sold to the State, or to i'or taxes due thereon since the ry, 1885, or whioh may hereafter sold to the 11 be subjeot and said taxes , although the owner be unknown, or be 1isteU in the
ner; and though land may be sold WI- for all texes, inter- n to be due by such as- A subsequent suit by the State for the same
closure on the same land was allowed by the
said statute.
e State sued to foreolose on the land for the years 188l+ to 1888, and for 18% The court held that the State oould and thereby did waive its rights under the deed for the 188l+ taxes, and allowed recovery of the taxes sued for, with interest. It ml&t be mentioned that when the suit was brou&t the period of redemption from the pre- vious sale had not expired.
Ron. James ?i. Swarts, February 6, 1939, Page 2 was held that taxes
In State vs. Liles, 212 S.‘!. 517, it taxes for a given for prior years were disposed of upon sale for but th;t case is not applicable here for two reasons: (1) year, The land in that case was sold to an individual, snd not to the State so as to f&l within Article 7320; and (2) an amendment to Article 7326, in 1923, formed the basis of the opinion of Judge Nickels ol' the Commission of Appeals in State )Zortgage Gorporation VS. State, 17 :I'.'./. (2d) 8Oi, to hold contrary to State vs. Liles, and decree that tilthough the land should be sold to an individual on a tax saie, the State could thereafter maintain foreclosure ac- tions for taxes vohich had accrued prior to the taxes for which the first action 7:as brourht and the sale made.
Cur answer to your first lluestion is that the purchaser of' this land will not take title free of taxes accruing prior to 1933.
The State, not choosing to waive its deed, as was dona in Teague vs. State, supra, but to stand upon the same, and the State's title thereto having become ripe through expiration of the period of redemption, the lands were not assessable for taxes for years subsequent to the purchase by the State. 61 C.J. 1232, Sec. In the absence of an express intent to do so, the State may 1674. not tax its own land. 61 C.J. 366-7; Brinneman vs. Soholens, 128 S.V. 58l+(Ark.); Eenger vs. Douglas County, 29 P. 588 (Kan.); Pen- ick vs. Floyd 'Willis Cotton Co. 81 So. 540 (misc.); Ortman vs. Kit- titas County, 177 F. 721 (Wash.!. ??hile the State has made conatl- tutional provisions vhereby certain taxes may be levied n on Univer- sity land (Art. 7, Sea. 16 (a) 1 ana county sohool lands 7 Art. '7, Sec. 6 (a) ), no suoh provision permits the taxation of the land in question while belonging to the State.
,Answering your second question, we beg to advise that a sale under Article 7328 will convey title free of taxes acoruing since the State's purchase of the land.
Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL Ol? TKKAS By /s/ Glenn R. Lewis Assistant GRL:FG:jrb APPROVED:
/s/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXfiS