OFFICE OFTHE AlTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS
**AUSTIN i** 

Eonocab1.aHolYoy vmllam 

### Crlniinal

DistriotAttorney 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 trcrayour 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 

### afrorae1s 8 voluntary mparat on tifia thla fether, 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 

### othermunioipalsubdivlaion 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 appolnt**ing 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 mem

### ber, when the salary, ree6 or compen6atlOn Of suoh appointee ie to be p%iQ for, Qireotly or lnbireotlp, out or or 

## rrompub110 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 8tated:

*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 dowm**Wafd8,** and t,hedegree the two persons, 

### or the nicEe remote or them 16 Qlrctantrrom 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 fatherKon. Holvey Wlliame, page 3.

each one or thein16 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 relrctebby ooo67 **ark. bS7,**  **SS Am.**  **Ileo. 288i**  **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 oplniortah'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 cloomo5 interest In the e6- tate of the latter. &iuehis not the ease by % Qlvoroee, property rights being LidjudioateQor %&reed 

### upon lnoldental to the.Decree. xaah party is divest%& of %ny interest lo the others property.



# Peon. fiolveywIl.litms,page



### You aleo~fuggest4

a dletlnotlon 

### that death is an

__ _ -. involuntary

separatzon,

wmrsae aivome 1s voluntary. YOU say that in the evsntor deathor one epousethe ra- ’ lng betweenthepartiesof bothrwnilies would aontlnueas thoughtheyylore

living together,whereasIn dlvorosthe 583iie reello& VOU~ not 0oehue. KQthink your statement generally true, but not without exception.



### No onewoould

oontendthat a Ulmroe, however 6freotlveln dlesolvlngthe memrlago 

### ana rsleaslngthe mutual rightsand obligationsor the partiesas betweenthmslres, would or couldohaogsthe parental8tatus of eitherparty with respectto a child oi suohmarriage. Lie cannotagree thet the tie or filialresponsiblllty would be any 1~8 bindingin the one caao than iu the other. The nopotlsm lawwas enaotedupon the theorythat publlopolicydemnd~ that there be no 

### ottlotalfavoritism 

### shownby those in authorityto theirklth and kin. The statuteshouldbe construed In the lightor its purpose. bve think the courts of TSXtSWWlld r0u0nr therea8onlngof the cases citedherein where deathpermmmntlg ended the maritalstatu8. It is therefore 

### our opinionthat so loog as there Is living lsaue, 

### the schoolboard oould 

### not legallyenploythe dlvoroodwife oi a brotherOf one of itsmembers.
pours ~&y truly