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 the 

‘on the followlag Saotual 

opialon o 

“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-de08 sed 1 d wner.” 

"The atuwal deseasmont made upon landed 

lion thereon; end 

- _ 

property shall be a special 

all DfODerty. both rocll end uo~son~l. Dcroilp$n& 

to any delinquent tnxveyynr shnll be llublctito 

seizure and sole for the payment of all the 

of the Ooastltutlou of ‘Zexea, 

.-.. _ _..- ^.. ^” -.-_- .__.. ..- 
231 

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 

pr ovlde . (Bnphasls ours) 

Under the deolrlon of the Supreme Court of Texas 

in Jones v. Wllllanis, 45 3.W. (26) 130, 136, it was held that 1. 

“section 15 of Article 8 of the Constltutlon provides a desorlptlve legal term for exactions which maybe imposed by the Legislature 

Sor failure to pay property taxen, namely, ‘Denaltles, I’ a oommon-law term ,,lmplylng punishment. 

The questlcnthere involved was whether or not Interest end penalties oonstituted a part of the tax whichwature oould not remit by general law, in violation of 

Seotion 56, Article 3, Constitution of Texas. The court held 

thst lntsrest was a penalty end that gelther formed a part of 

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. 416, 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 

s homestead despite the provisions of 3ectlon 50, Article 16, 

of the Constitution. There was also involved the question 

ss to whether or not the purchaser of a homestead belonglog 

to a deoti.dent UDOO whloh delinquent taxes. lntcrest end penalties had aoorueh and who purchased suoh h&nestcad, subject to 

the lien for all taxes which had accrued thereon, uas personally, 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 assesament made upon landed property shall be a 

speolal lien thereon, and all property, both reel 

and gersonal, belonging to any delinquent taxpayer 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 
r-, 

’ 

# 

. 252 

Hoaornble Bruoe L:Pmker, page 3 

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 payment 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 15, 

art. 8, Would not be suffloleut to make the homestend liable Sor the penalties if the Conatltutloa did not contain seotloa 50, art. 16. . . i" 

After dit%poslng of the question of the validity of 

the oonstltutlonal lien for both the taxes and penalties, the 

aourt holds aa follows es to the personal lleblllty of the 

QliPOh8lWr. I 

I The purohaser of property lncumber8d Wit'ikOiloe always buys it subject to a previous valid lieu, but he does not, although he 

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, supra, end sirnilar provlsioas 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 aubstantlally identical, ehd in mo8nlng precisely the name. 

Prior to the incorporation of the language uoed 

in aeotion 20, just quotbd, with reference to a 

lien on land for taXe8, in the Constitution of 

1876, its meanin& had been definitely doolared 

b 

8 

this court. As used ln the Constitution of 

1 69 it was held to mean that the lien provided 

iOr ettnohed, not to the property Of the taxpayer 
-7- 

! 

f 

- -- 

’ 

’ 233 

Ronorable Bruoe Li Parker, page 4 

generally, but only to each separate tract or parcel of land for the taxes assessed agalnst'lt. . . . 

~. (Citing cases) By.lnoorporatlng this language in 

: 'the Constltutlm of, 1876 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. However, such lien attaches only against the portloular tract 

OS land upon which the taxes were delinquent, and does not 

attach to other lands or property of tho sstate. In 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 

might, exist rite~foreolosure sad aale of the landed 

property for thq delillQU8Ilt t8.x8U nlld pennltles. 

. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GEMERALOFTEXAS 

‘, .c 

BY 

Aeelstant'