Hon. SamL. Jones, Jr. OPINIONNO. 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 wherethe 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. Weuonflnt this opinion to the 1957 taxes.

Weaasumt 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: Hadecroft.vs. Gity.of Houston, 

### 239 S.W. 2d 

### 828,(Ttx. Civ. $:~. 633. 

### n other ground8 by thenSupreme Court) s~evtrte* 150 Tex. 654; 243 S.W. Blewett v. Richards dent,Sohool District S!@ S.W. 529, (Tex. coma. or , HumbleOll~andIien. SamL. Jones, Jr., page 2, Opinion No. WW-385

Refining Companyvs. 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, wehold 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. Weare compelled to reach this conclusion by the holding of the SupremeCourt 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 themwhile 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 maypass 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. Webelieve 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$ Bprivate 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 otlckBrfrom personal liablllty from the taxes lawg;lyoyae6sod a&sinst him **and** his property u of January mjky’sell T 

### Wblr year,byreasonorthef&etthat 

### he

1 rt &date eubeequent to January 

### lrttoa publie body i’or a public puPpore.

Uebelieve that the SupremeC 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** 

### to8llbw the 

### Statereoove~ ote/l2ofthe1945tare& kiy r0r 

### thatportionoftheyearhatter Reeve had boF refdmd, at 

### t thammrty, and,aeeo

med the Judgment. See Art. 71%. A.@., Vernontr Ann. Qiv. St. wt. 

### 71SL"
Id statute **In** it* 

### tbocourt not 

### reeqnlred 

### thevalld.ity 

### o?thir entirety, we do not think that it muld have relied upaorit ln ar*-% 

### thejprdpdnt oftheCoux~8

or Civil Anjmals 

### rhlchallow8 @

### noovery againat a **primto** WC Wb purehared tu 

### l xevt )+operty #ubHqoent to Jv 

### lilt

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

### publice#encf,m&ohaa a 

### alty,eubroqwnt to Jurum 1st of &hetaxable year @ndprior to the 

### end of the **tuble** year, is charged 

### withknouledge.that the law Qnporen a personal llabllity -net hir tor **the** taxes whioh accrued a6 of January let of @he taxable year. Heha8 the wane of **protoating** himself bg *ng bhir li&ility into -aunt llr hlr lontraot

**ot** 6alo

and 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 wanaoaulred

-‘him bp oondemnatlon. St te of %x&r, VS. &K&T 698 (5th C1rW&j. -E&ate, **i56 Pod.-** **ad**,.

.. ;i’

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

oancelied that such liability Its follows from the foregoing that the assessments madebv 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 MlKA.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, mayprotect himself In the contract of sale between the city and the seller or in the condemnation prooeedings.
Yours very truly
WILLWILSON

.’
,. LPL/fb Assistant Attorney General APPROVEI); OPIWION

COWRITTEE George P. Blaokburn, Chairman Ji C. .Davia, Jr. C. **K.** Richards Wayland Rivers, Jr.
REXIBWBD

PORTRB**ATTORNEY**QRNBRAL By: W.V. (feppert