Hon. Sam L. Jones, Jr. OPINION NO. WW-385 

Mstrict Attorney 

Nueces County 

Corpus Christi, Texas 

Re: 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

Ie a Sahool Metrlct, Junior 

College or other taxing 

agency required to remove 

from the rolla of the Mstrict taxes lawfully aaimssed 

where the property 1s acquired by the city or other 

political subdivision after 

the first of the year. 

You request the opinion of thie’offict upon the 

question of the collection and enforcement of the payment 

of ad valorem taxes owing to certain taxing agencies In 

Nueces County, Texas, upon certain land acquired by the 

City of Corpus Christi for airport construction. We uonflnt this opinion to the 1957 taxes. 

We aasumt that the following facts are undisputed. 

(1) That the City of Corpus Christ1 acquired the 

land by purchase or condemnation from the private owners 

thercof. 

(2) That the taxee were lawfully assessed against 

such private owners for the year, 1957. 

(3) That from July 1, 1957, the date of acquisition, 

ruch property,was held by the City of Corpus Christi for a 

public purpose. 

. 

. 

(4) That the respective taxing districts assess 

and collect their taxes ,in conformity with the time and 

manner applicable to state and county taxta. 

It is the settled law of this State that the taxgble status of property is fixed as of January 1st of the 

taxable year. The following cases so hold: Had ecroft.vs. 

Gity.of Houston, 239 S.W. 2d 828, (Ttx. Civ. 

$:~. 633. 

n other ground8 by then Supreme Court) 

s~evtrte* 

150 Tex. 654; 243 S.W. 

Blewett v. Richards dent,Sohool District 

S!@ S.W. 529, (Tex. coma. or , Humble Oll~and 
Iien. Sam L. Jones, Jr., page 2, Opinion No. WW-385 

Refining Company vs. State, 3 S-W, 2d 559 (Tex. Civ, App. 

1928 error refused Winters vs. Independent. School Dletrick pf Evant, 20 'S.W. 5'14 (T Cl A 1919 Er 

?&smis;sed), State of, Texas vs. 

6~8 (7th Circuit 194o). 

k%iy &at::‘156 Fed.% 

This brings us to the crucial question Involved 

In this connection, we hold that none of 

for 19.57, under the facts before us, I& owing 

e City of Corpus Christi. Moreover, there is no legal' 

to enforce the collection of said taxes against the 

$!lty of Corpus Christl. We are compelled to reach this 

conclusion by the holding of the Supreme Court In the aase 

of State vs. Xity of San Antonio, et al, 147 Ttx. 1, 209 S.W. 

2d 756 from which we quote as follows: 

"Although the state and county did 

have a lien against the lot for taxes 

due them while the lot was privately 

owned by Barnes and others, the lien 

became unenforceable after the city 

and school district acquired title to 

it by the tax sale in 1938 and while 

they continue to hold it for public 

purposes; and the lot, while so held, 

was not subject to seizure and sale 

to satisfy a judgment for taxes levied 

by the state and county during the 

time it was so privately owned; and any 

proceeding attempting to accompllah 

that is void. State v, Stovall, Tex. Civ. 

APP., 76 SOW. 2d 206, error refused; 

Childress County v. State et al, 12'7 

Tex. 343, 92 S.W. 2d 1011; City of 

Marlin v. St$te, Tex, Clv. App,, 205 

sow. 2d 809. 

However, we do not construe this case, nor any 

other that has come under our observation, as precluding 

the personal liability for taxes assessed againiet a private 

owner as of January 1st of the taxable year; notwithstanding, 

the property is acquired by a crity or some other public 

agency for a public purpose subsequent to January 1st of the 

taxable year. 

Nor do we construe Article 7151, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes as purporting to relieve a private owner from .~,~,c:,::~n3 

personal liability~ for taxes assessed against him as of 

January 1st up to the time the property may pass into the 
. 

. 

Iton. S6a L. $0~18, Jr., page 3, Opinion No. Ui385 

hands oi & public agency by purchase or condaanstion for a 

public gurpose. We believe to 80 constlve thlr statute 

would render it unconstltutlonal as according an exemption 

from tax&Ion in vlolatlon of Section 2 of ArtZole VIII of 

the Constitution and Section 55 of Article III forbidiw 

a release or forgiveness of taxes and obligation due the 

State. This statute merely provides for taxation agtine$ 

B private ouner for the remaining portion of a taxable 

y&ar where the property acquired wee prior thereto exemp% 

from taxation. Indeed, the statute expressly 80 provider; 

There Is nothing in the language of the statute to Indicate 

%?2f& ‘A% W&S %tR i-th.Wtt$ATZa -yf %bR ‘.iib’dWFb ‘tt WX#?l@b 5 

private otlckBr from personal liablllty from the taxes lawg;lyoyae6sod a&sinst him and his property u of January 

mjky’sell T 

Wblr year, by reason or the f&et that he 

1 rt & date eubeequent to January lrt to a publie 

body i’or a public puPpore. 

Ue believe that the Supreme C 

adopted this view in the o&n of 

.Pe%. 322, 20? S.U. 26 %94. fo 

.ee court ot civil Appealr m 8.U. 

2&893 ref+oraed the j-tit to 8llbw the 

State reoove~ ot e/l2 of the 1945 tare& 

kiy r0r that portion of the year hatter 

Reeve had bo 

refdmd, at F 

t tha mmrty, and, ae eo 

med the Judgment. See Art. 

71%. A.@., Vernontr Ann. Qiv. St. wt. 71SL" 

Id 

statute In it* 

tbo court not reeqnlred the valld.ity o? thir 

entirety, we do not think that it muld have 

relied upaor it 

ln ar*-% 

the jprdpdnt of the Coux~8 or 

Civil Anjmals rhlch allow8 @ noovery againat a primto 

WC Wb purehared tu l xevt )+operty #ubHqoent to 

Jv lilt of the turUe mm. 

%ae privM* owmr oi propert7, rho roll,8 to a 

public e#encf, m&oh aa a alty, eubroqwnt to Jurum 1st 

of &he taxable year @nd prior to the end of the tuble 

year, is charged with knouledge.that the law Qnporen a 

personal llabllity -net hir tor the taxes whioh accrued 

a6 of January let of @he taxable year. He ha8 the wane of 

protoating himself bg *ng bhir li&ility into -aunt 

llr h lr l o ntr a o ot t 6a lo a nd pureham with mob pabllo agency. 

It b8 should rui to do 60, VI know 0r no law th& *ould re1UVe hlr Of thie pr+8-e%.l6ting liability. The mle would 

tit be dlfrerent if the Drooertu wan aoaulred -‘him bp 

oondemnatlon. St te of %x&r, VS. &K&T 

698 (5th C1rW&j. 

-E&ate, i56 Pod.- ad 
,. 

. . 

;i’ 

. 

” Hon. Sam L. Jones, Jr., paw 4, Opinion No. W-585 

oancelied 

that such 

liability 

Its follows from the foregoing that the assessments 

made bv the taxing districts for the year 1957 should not be 

upon the assessment rolls; this for the reason 

assessments constitute the basis of the personal 

against such taxpayers until the taxes are pai’d. 

S.U M lKA.R Y 

A city acquiring property from private owner6 

by purchase or condemnation after January 1st 

of the taxable year for a public purpose is 

not liabile for ad valorem taxes due other 

public agencies, such as Independent School 

Districts, for the year in which purahased, 

The owner, of the property so sold, Is personally liable for the taxes for the entire 

taxable year and not merely up to the date 

of acquisition. Article 7151 V.C.S. should 

not be construed as fixing liability against 

the owner for only the portion of the year 

prior to the date of aaquisition. If the 

city acquires the property for a public purpose, the owner of the, property so purchased, 

If he so desires, may protect himself In the 

contract of sale between the city and the 

seller or in the condemnation prooeedings. 

Yours very truly 

WILL WILSON 

.’ ,. 

LPL/f b Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVEI); 

OPIWION COWRITTEE 

George P. Blaokburn, Chairman 

Ji C. .Davia, Jr. 

C. K. Richards 

Wayland Rivers, Jr. 

REXIBWBD POR TRB ATTORNEY QRNBRAL 

By: W. V. (feppert