OFFICE OFTHE AlTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

i 

Eonocab1.a HolYoy vmllam 

Crlniinal Distriot Attorney 

WaBeoo , Texas 

o - 2 b 48,. 

mar sir: opinion NO. o-2e4q 

IN: mect.4f dl,wrcrr on apFlioatioa. or nepotiun statute. 

-we w&lQ~~lfks to h&an opinion trcra your 

departwait q'to vihethb;r or not this would prrvent emplopqd or the hivoreea wire as a teaohoontinue an though they were living to 

whereas afrorae 1s 8 voluntary mparat f on tifia thla 

ether, 

reeling or kimship would not Oontinue.W 

&?tlole 43giti,the rezml code read8 a8 iollmm: 
mn. Holvey 7rllllam8, 

*No orrioer or thie State or any ofrioer 

of any dietriot, oounty, oity, preoinot, sohool 

&i6trlcti, or other munioipal subdivlaion of this 

state, or any orrioer or rmmber or any State, 

Qlstrlot, oounty, city, %ohool Bl6trlot or other 

muniolpal boara, or judge or any oourt, created 

by or under authority or sag &-%neral or epeoial 

law or this State, or any member or the Legislature ahall appoint, or vote ror or oonflrm the 

%ppo&nent to any oftice, position, olerkehip, 

employment or duty, of any person related within 

the 6000na degree by %rrinity or wlthln the third 

degree by aonsangtinity to the person so appolnting or 60 voting, or to %ny other member of any 

suoh board, the Legislature, or aourt or whiah 

suoh person so appointing or voting may be a member, when the salary, ree6 or compen6atlOn Of suoh 

appointee ie to be p%iQ for, Qireotly or lnbireotlp, out or or rrom pub110 run&6 or rese or offioe 

or any kind or oharaoter whatsoever.* 

It is olear, from reading the abow, ertiole, that 

a teacher may not be employed by % sohool Qi6trlct it related to a member or the sohool board wlthln the seoond tlegree by atrinity or the third degree by oon%%nguinity. 

The method of aomputlng the degree of oons%ngulnity le set out in the a%%8 or Tyler Tap Railroad Comp%ny and 

miiglasa v. overton, 1 Tex. Ct. of ;il?p. 268, wherein the 

oourt 8 tated: 

*In aomputing the degree or lineal oonsengul.nity exlstlng between two persona, evsry generation 

In the Qlreot cour6% or rel%tlonshlp between the 

two parties makes a degree, and the rule is the 

mm by the oivll and oommon law. The mode 0r cornputlng degree8 or oollateral oonsanguinlty at the 

oonmon and by the c%non law ie to Qieoover the 

oommon ancestor, to begin with hlm to reakon dowmWafd8, and t,he degree the two persons, or the nicEe 

remote or them 16 Qlrctant rrom the anoeator, Is 

the degree or kindred eubslsting between them. 

For Instance, two brothers %re related to each 

other in the first degree beceuae from the father 
Kon. Holvey Wlliame, page 3. 

each one or thein 16 one degree. m uncle and 

nephew are related to e%oh other in the second 

&egree, because the nephew Is two degrees dlstant iron the camnon amwtor, ana the unole is 

extended to the remtest degree of oollatersl 

relatlonshlp." 

mgrees or afrlnity are oomputea in the s%me 

manner as tho6e of ooneangu~itg. That ia to say, the 

reltitlon of the wife stands at the wne degree of atilnlty to her husband's bwother a~~~yhuebtmd and his 

brother are relrcteb by ooo6 

ark. bS7, SS Am. Ileo. 288i 7 2 . J. 3iQ* 

Kelly v. Neely, l2 

State v. Rooper, 14C F&ii. 481, 37 1'. 

2 C.J.$. 9928 

(id) 52. 

It is well settled in Texas that upon % sinikir 

raot oltu%tlon as outlined by you, where the marltel relationship 15 aleeolved by death or a 6 

ship by arrlnity continues me mm 

in issue who 8~3x3 still l.iv&. 

or 9 ma 61~s 71 

.$.w: *(id) 3+Qr fa&. 2 ate, (Tea cr.) 22 Tex. App. 

If there were no ohildren such relationahlp 15 temin&Q. Lewis v. o*Elnir, supru; our oplniorta h'o. O-1237b 

approved ,zue. 19, 19391 O-2383, approved June ll, 1940. 

We hare been unable to find any court deoloian 

ror use %s a preceQent In detarn&n5ng the ao6wer to your 

question; where ths dissolution of mrrlage 16 erreOta& by 

alvoroe rather than by death. The question ror our deter- 

-n is, oonoatllng -the relation&l 

x 

by affinity 

continues after the dis5olutlon of tha za%rr %@e by death, 

does the s%me rule neoeesarily follow wh%re the marrlag;e 

relationship is extizIgulshe& by Qlroroo; 

AS pointed out by you, the law6 of descent and 

distribution in this state give the survivl~ spouse and 

the ohllQren or the decm8eU cl oomo5 interest In the e6- 

tate of the latter. &iueh is not the ease by % Qlvoroee, 

property rights being LidjudioateQ or %&reed upon lnoldental 

to the.Decree. xaah party is divest%& of %ny interest lo 

the others property. 

P 
eon. fiolvey wIl.litms, page 

You aleo~fuggest 

4 

a dletlnotlon that death is an __ _ -. involuntary separatzon, wmrsae aivome 1s voluntary. 

YOU say that in the evsnt or death or one epouse the ra- ’ 

lng between the parties of both rwnilies would aontlnue as 

though they ylore living together, whereas In dlvoros the 

583iie reello& VOU~ not 0oehue. KQ think your statement 

generally true, but not without exception. 

No one woould oontend that a Ulmroe, however 6freotlve ln dlesolvlng the memrlago ana rsleaslng the mutual 

rights and obligations or the parties as between thmslres, 

would or could ohaogs the parental 8tatus of either party 

with respect to a child oi suoh marriage. Lie cannot agree 

thet the tie or filial responsiblllty would be any 1~8 

binding in the one caao than iu the other. The nopotlsm 

law was enaoted upon the theory that publlo policy demnd~ 

that there be no ottlotal favoritism shown by those in authority to their klth and kin. The statute should be construed In the light or its purpose. bve think the courts 

of TSXtSWWlld r0u0nr the rea8onlng of the cases cited herein where death permmmntlg ended the marital statu8. It is 

therefore our opinion that so loog as there Is living lsaue, 

the school board oould not legally enploy the dlvorood wife 

oi a brother Of one of its members. 

pours ~&y truly