Case Information
*1 OFFICEOFIHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
County rttora4y
81 Plmo* %xaEaa
Dear Sir,
eanind Dollara (~3,000.00) or the 81). of all rssibent homeataac¶s as shall be exempt froa all taxa- that this provided r oable to that portioa of the Stats ad valoren taxes levied ror State pur- poses ramitted within those oounties or other poLit- lcal subdivision now reoeirfag any remission Op
State taxes, until the srpfration or auoh period Of red.ssloa, &lea6 before the expiration Or-auoh
period the beard or ~evarnia~ body of any oae aore of suoh oou&~les or political subdivisions
:,. *2 - Paga 2
Hoaorablo ~&nest Guirrn shall hato oertifibd to the State Comptrolbr that the need ror such rem.lssloo or t4xe4 has oeesrd to exist in a&oh oountr or polltloel then thia Seotioa shell b44ome ,aubdirislon; epplionble to eeoh aouatp or ,polltlaal sub- division as'and wh4a it shall beaoau within the provisions h4zwi.w
It will ba aott that the abov4 prorislons of our Coastltutloa provides 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.m e hone- steed. The oaurt'ia ssid oeae sat out the rollonlag~rul4s to dstemine whether or aot the ral~t~oashlp of 4 ratily, aa oontemplated b;r lam; 4xlst.s:
"1. St ie on4 or a eo4iel status, not of m4re aoatmot.~
9. La@& or pioral obligation 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 $hfags,*Tk4 hws4tead of a raclLl* / ,..~ ,' shell be aad fa bereby~proteotod from roroed SdLe, for .' :. the payment of all debt;0 except . . . the taxes due thereon... ."
S;otioa 5i or said Artlois derinae a horn- stead,;$a&ofar es w4 ar4 hew 6oao4rkad, as ialLorr8: .
"'~ "Tke homestead la 4 aSty, towa or tl3- lago, ihall aoneiet or'lot. o$lcW, not to oxoeed in w&as fits tkawead ~&ollars, at the time OS thair deaignation,,tis fhs bnutataad, without refermss to the i4lne ot any 5.#provs- Bents thereon; proM.d&d., tkat'th4 &me ahalL ba used for the purpose, of 4 home, 0~~ as f~ ,’ -
Honorable %mes* Ouinp - PaiXe 3
pleoe to exerolae the calling or busineaa of the head of 8 taz&lp."
Under the above quoted taOta end numoroua deaf- alons of our appellate courts , we think there can be no question but that the daughter her aged and depenbent mother oonatituted ? TamllyW and the house, together with t&e lot or lots ua4d in aonneotlon tharsnlth, owned br tho dePghter, ,$A *hioh they lived, ooAatltuted the *resideat home- stead* of th4 family while it wee 60 oeoupiad, wltliin ma~lng of those terns as mod in.the ooAatftutlona1 provi- SiOAS above quoted, and, 66 auuh resident homestead, it was exemp~t rrom taxation to the aam extent es any other real- dent homestead la exempt under ths.provialoAa of Sootion l-a Artiol4 XXII or the COAatitUtiOA. Roco v. Qreen, 50 Tex. 489; Vaolis v. Buckley, 52 ?!eX. 6411 Barry v. iTale (CIV. App.), 21 3. W. 7831 iiraught Ic Go. v. Stellworth (clv. ~pp.), 100 S.,7V. 188; Hutah4nrider eta1 v. Smith (COIL App.) 2l$2 5; W. 205; H'oodr at 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; Stanilard Pevl,ng Co. v. Toloon et al. (Clr. Agp.), 86 25. W. (2d) 789; Chamlee V. Chaalee (Civ. App.), ll> S. WA. (2d) 290~ Rea~atruotlon Firmno.
Corporation v. BArgesa (Clr. APR.), 155 8. Y. (2~3) 977, and authorltles there oited.
So tar 81) wa have beea able ssoetitaia the eaot qaestion hae not baen preaentfnd to our oourts, nor gvBpomtbeen eble to find any oaao frorm other jurisdlotWt6 [1] i the daughter ooAtinued art,er the death of her mother la l whether the hmeatehd right6 of The ~ueatiaa 61
the real question with whioh we ~a24 here oonoarned. xr au& rights uontlaued, then your qubation neat be answered b the affl.rmative, ior one of those ri&ts Is the exemption I of the hoaeatead from taxation to the extent provided iA
Section l-a ot Artiolo 8 of the COAstitittiOA.
?ig think that the oa64 of Wood6 v. Alvarado State
BaAk. suprs, a6 oonstrued In Daniel v. Cook, supra, has
, ,\ *4 Honorable Ernest Otinn - Page 4
definitely settleii this question.
Irr Woo&o v. Alrarado State Bank, it was said3 *In view ot our oonatltutional and statutory prorlslons conoernlng homestead rights, ue have oonoluded that in this state the hameatead 1s to be rugarCed as an aatete oraatad not only for the proteotlon of the faidly as a rholo, but ror units ot tha family, inoludlng those who surrire, and embracing t&o hesb.or the rmailp at the time or its dissolution, whether the dlesolutlon has been brought about by death or by dleperaal, as from a ~ere.:prlvllege aocorded the.
dlstixguirphed head or the rmy ror the banerft or the rsmilp
as a whols." or cirir, hppedii, 275
mit3 0piniolr or court a. Y. 157, oontalns,a.rulL statement or the raots in the 0880 rrcfifi whioh.the roregoing quotation was.taken, Wn May 31,: 1901, a divorce was &atcted in ~. ;..;
the dlstrlat aourt Johnson county,~TaL:ln raror 0r~carrie Woods againat 3. Di'WoWs; YAt
the time sa.id Clvoras was granted, the said
partieo, beIn@ husband 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 011 the home plaoe with their rather, 2, 3 or 4 years, un- til Pesrl Woodrr, the girl, was 12 0T 13 years age, when.they both want to Oklahoma. Paall, the girl never returned to live with her rather, but oontlnued live In Oklahoma, where ahs married in 1906 when about 14 gears or age. The boy, In about 1906, returned to Texas, and 12ade several ,: *5 Eonorable Zrnaat OtiDn - Page 5
tripe fram Texas to Oklahoma, llring with
his rather cr part or ths tims arid elmwhrro 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 beem married living with her husbsnd in Oklahosta ior the last 18 or 20 yeurs. Butwean the data the dlvoroe was
granted l.n 1901 an4 about 1907, and while eai4
children, or at least one or thsm, wa8 living
with appellant a part of the tIma, he bought
sermal mall traots of land, aggregating about 124 aorau, adjofninu said OriginaL 104 uares,
making a total 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 Isarab 22, 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 sly esta$e, valued et &OOO.*
*Appellant havtng made default in the' pay- nrent of said note, eppellae bank &ought suit
on sam, ana~reooterec a judgment against ap-
pellant ror $8,582. Thereafter, the bank cauoed an axeoutlon to be irsued an4 levied upon 214
aorea of said 228 aere6, whereupon appellant and hla daughter, Psarl Hale, an% husbaad,~ prooured a taqorerp lnjunotion restraining the sale. On the trial or this InjunotloiLoaae berorr..ttre aourt
without a jury, the oourt perpetuated said fajuno- tion aa to the 101 atsres, the land appellant owned at the time the divorae WAS granted, but 4Xssulvad said lnjunotion as to the remainder of the 214 aares, *6 OP 8pprolimat.s~ 110 acres, the land aaquir64
by appellant ester the ditoroe ~8 grant&.
Both aidea exoepted to the judgment ot the court.
Th6 068s iE4 befor Ue on rt3ei~~erltS by epp6&Wlt,
eontending the whole of maid land woe 6XOStpt to
J. D. 3oods aa a holwstsad, and theretore not
8Ubj66t t0 SX66Utbl 8Jld, OD 0P08e*&Wm6lltS n0 Q8Zt Of maid lead U86
by Egp61166, 6O?it6nd& 6x611ipt to app6lf8nt a8 8 hom6stead.* Th6 Supreme Court hold that YVooode w&e entitled to his ZO&aors hmertead, and that the triti court #would have set 8ptWt that amount et land to him or his t6nd668.”
Th6 fact@ %l &Id81 P. Cook, 8tlpl'8,, 8s 86t OUt in the Opinion 6i th6 OOUPt, are ae Xollow~r
“b t&i8 SUit bZOU< by kf. 5.’ I>a&ti61 against we. bt. J. C0ok, a widow, the plaintiff,
among 0th6f *hinge, mmght roreeloscr 8n at-
taohrnsnt lien upon 125 aore of lead in Jonee
oounty, b~langiag to the defendant.
“arrs. Cook derend6d OLI the gtouqid that tha land waa h6r hofia6stead, and ior~timt.reeaon 6XISS#. Ilrr. Cook, on or about Sdptenber 17,
1907, after Bh@ Bee-6 8 widow, aOqUbBd, by
pUl'0~8S6. th6 ;LSDd in qUestiOn, and togethsr
with eight m$nor children or hefa maored upon tmd
OOOUpi6d it 66 (I home. She 8Ll6g6d that:it oontinued t0 b6 her holaeetsad Up tO ths,$isls Of
the 16~ of attaehmmt.
"In reply to,thl?i contention, D&niel pleaded that Era. Cook had' long sizllre abandoned the
prOp6rty es her hOmeotead, and had BOqUired, . . . -, owned, end livsd tipon bth6r land.ln Taylor oountg end 61eewh6re, by rsaaoon whereof th6 land in oontroverey had long ~*inOe loot if%.hm66t6ad ohaTaOt6r. The 6Videnoe 8hOW8d that &a. Cook, With
two utunarrfed daughters, aov6d rramthe farm to Abilene in 192i+, end had not since oooupied the
IIonomble -3l68t &Ii= - PafZe 7
r8FR in qU98tiOL At the the suit was filed
Mrs. Cook nith hsr alily remaining unmarri6d
daUght6r w88 liting nith another Prarri6d dSU&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 iarpS a8 a hOme8tead tar several
yeara prior 1923; (b),that ah6 at all tkaes
ainoe l923 had b66n the h68d of 6 f8Isilp Oofl-
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~ f8iUily baok
tOthefamnandaulk6 it a &v3l%mmnth6kae iOr
herlrslf and suoh~uunarrl6d de sndent mamb6r,
or a6abersj &her fPnilyr (d P and that Mrs.
Cook, 8e the h6aQ a raraiiy, n6ver intsndod
at any ttie to US6 8nny of the property aoquir6d by h6r ;a Abil6ne as P p6?6UUi6~t holDs for herself and unnmrried dependent nmmber, Of PBliIbW8,
her faally. The trial judge, aft6r rsfuaing a p6F6UiptOr~ iMtl7lOtiOu fOF .D8n%61, 68TS F%qU88t6d 'judgewnt for Lls6. Cook, danring foreclosor6~ot 8ttadUWnt 1i6ll. Fran this judgzmnt, Daulel hea appea;led.*
That p8ti'Of th6 OOWt*ll 6piniOZI ptWt8illins t0 the qU8stiOu U6.1116 here OOlISid6Fing 1~6 aS 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 LIOt direotly ahalleng6d, Chet at all tim68 since and prior to the tine She ir~oved away frcraa the faX%U ah6 in-
t8nd6d t9 mov6 baok IS.ak6 it her horn@, and
that in the aoqtisition and us6 of other propcarty in Abilene sho never intend6d to mice the latter
-- -
ilonorable &meet Quinn - Page 8
her permanent home, her atatria as to the ereaagtion heroin asserted was the
buaestead
sane a8 if she had hexer nroved away. In
other words, ahe aontinuously oooupied the
property as her homestead up end iuoluding
the time of the levy oi the attaohnent, If 'Was it neaessar~ that
so, thetpestlon lat
there be any remlning aowtituent of the thaa Mm. Cook her8elrt This
raplily other 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 of this point in said opinion uaa
. difWU88iOn dlota. A dlatinotion ia argued, baaed upon
Bhetker the houestead Is aequfred wklle both
husband and wire are lirlug, or by one OS
apouseo artier the mcrlage relation, for any
reason, has been dissolved. It ia,uell oet- to be eoneeded, that it the
tled, and seem
homestead la aoguired at a time when husband 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 distlnotion mggested.
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 oontroversy was aaquired after dissolution the z#arriage relation. The manner OS dissolution is unimportant. The murt*8 opinion oould not be correct on the facta. of that case ii the distlnotion here lnsltited upon should be held to exist. The disauectrion or the point
was, therefore, we think, not tierely diOta.”
It seem to be tke sattled law or this St&e that when a honestead is ones estsblished the right8 belonging thereto do not eeaee to exist by reQ8On Of the death or dispersal of the constituent members Of the ranily, but suck right.8 continue ror the protection the slirvlving unite or the Tam.ily, inaluding the heed *9 ‘honorable lbne8t Ooirrn - Page 9
02 the faatlly. Xn the Instant oaae, the unmrrled adult deu@ter and her mother, WiIilO 1iVing 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 dissolving the 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 uuinportant and lnauffiaient to warrant a omtrasy aonoluslon.
We anmer your question in tkb afU.rmatlVe. Youra very truly