OFFICEOFIHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

County rttora4y 

81 Plmo* %xaEaa 

Dear Sir, 

eanind Dollara (~3,000.00) or the 81). 

of all rssibent homeataac¶s as 

shall be exempt froa all taxar 

provided that this 

oable to that portioa 

of the Stats ad valoren taxes levied ror State purposes ramitted within those oounties or other poLitlcal subdivision now reoeirfag any remission Op 

State taxes, until the srpfration or auoh period 

red.ssloa, &lea6 before the expiration Or-auoh 

period the beard or ~evarnia~ body of any oae or 

aore of suoh oou&~les or political subdivisions 

Of 

:,. 
Hoaorablo ~&nest Guirrn - Paga 2 

shall hato oertifibd to the State Comptrolbr 

that the need ror such rem.lssloo or t4xe4 has 

oeesrd to exist in a&oh oountr or polltloel 

,aubdirislon; then thia Seotioa shell b44ome 

epplionble to eeoh aouatp or ,polltlaal subdivision as'and wh4a it shall beaoau within 

the provisions h4zwi.w 

It will ba aott that the abov4 prorislons of our 

Coastltutloa provides that th exomptlon shall apply to 

43.3. r4aldmnthonusteads “aa saw doriaed by law.* It was 

held la the oam or &%GJO v. Omen, SO Tar. 483, speJrix43 

through ASsoaieti Justi Bomer, that 6 oingle p4r6oa 

oould be the h4ad of a ismlly and as such o1al.m e honesteed. The oaurt'ia ssid oeae sat out the rollonlag~rul4s 

to dstemine whether or aot the ral~t~oashlp of 4 ratily, 

aa oontemplated b;r lam; 4xlst.s: 

"1. St ie on4 or a eo4iel status, not 

of m4re aoatmot.~ 

9. La@& or pioral obligation on tk4 

head to support-'the otker UmaberS. 

"3. Cdrmspoadln(: state of dependenoe 

on the part 0r.thO other asabers ior this 

atlpport." 

.., ,,. 

Seotlon:3Q; tilble 16, of oar Coaetltutl~a 

provides, aaang other $hfags,*Tk4 hws4tead of a raclLl* 

shell be aad fa bereby~proteotod from roroed SdLe, for 

the payment of all debt;0 except . . . the taxes due 

thereon... ." 

/ ,..~ ,' 

.' 

:. 

S;otioa 5i or said Artlois derinae a hornstead,;$a&ofar es w4 ar4 hew 6oao4rkad, as ialLorr8: 

. 

"'~ "Tke homestead la 4 aSty, towa or tl3- 

lago, ihall aoneiet or'lot. o$lcW, not to 

oxoeed in w&as fits tkawead ~&ollars, at the 

time OS thair deaignation,,tis fhs bnutataad, 

without refermss to the i4lne ot any 5.#provsBents thereon; proM.d&d., tkat'th4 &me ahalL 

ba used for the purpose, of 4 home, 0~~ as f~ 

,’ - 
Honorable %mes* Ouinp - PaiXe 3 

pleoe to exerolae the calling or busineaa of 

the head of 8 taz&lp." 

Under the above quoted taOta end numoroua deafalons of our appellate courts , we think there can be no 

question but that the daughter and her aged and depenbent 

mother oonatituted ? TamllyW and the house, together with 

t&e lot or lots ua4d in aonneotlon tharsnlth, owned br tho 

dePghter, ,$A *hioh they lived, ooAatltuted the *resideat homestead* of th4 family while it wee 60 oeoupiad, wltliin the 

ma~lng of those terns as mod in.the ooAatftutlona1 proviSiOAS above quoted, and, 66 auuh resident homestead, it was 

exemp~t rrom taxation to the aam extent es any other realdent homestead la exempt under ths.provialoAa of Sootion l-a 

or Artiol4 XXII or the COAatitUtiOA. Roco v. Qreen, 50 

Tex. 489; Vaolis v. Buckley, 52 ?!eX. 6411 Barry v. iTale 

(CIV. App.), 21 3. W. 7831 iiraught Ic Go. v. Stellworth 

(clv. ~pp.), 100 S.,7V. 188; Hutah4nrider eta1 v. Smith 

(COIL App.) 2l$2 5; W. 205; H'oodr at al v. Alvarado State 

sank (sup. Ct.), 19 S. 7J. (26) 35; Daniel v. Cook et al. 

(civ. ~pp.1, 70 S..W. (26) 102b; 2doCuaker v. Field (Cl*. 

Apa,.], 76 S. W. (26) 816; Stanilard Pevl,ng Co. v. Toloon 

et al. (Clr. Agp.), 86 25. W. (2d) 789; Chamlee V. Chaalee 

(Civ. App.), ll> S. WA. (2d) 290~ Rea~atruotlon Firmno. 

Corporation v. BArgesa (Clr. APR.), 155 8. Y. (2~3) 977, and 

authorltles there oited. 

So tar 81) wa have beea able to ssoetitaia the 

eaot qaestion hae not baen preaentfnd to our oourts, nor 

gvBpomtbeen eble to find any oaao frorm other jurisdlotWt6 

1 l 

i The ~ueatiaa 61 whether the hmeatehd right6 of 

the daughter ooAtinued art,er the death of her mother la 

the real question with whioh we ~a24 here oonoarned. xr 

au& rights uontlaued, then your qubation neat be answered 

I b the affl.rmative, ior one of those ri&ts Is the exemption 

of the hoaeatead from taxation to the extent provided iA 

Section l-a ot Artiolo 8 of the COAstitittiOA. 

?ig think that the oa64 of Wood6 v. Alvarado State 

BaAk. suprs, a6 oonstrued In Daniel v. Cook, supra, has 

, ,\ 
Honorable Ernest Otinn - Page 4 

definitely settleii this question. 

Irr Woo&o v. Alrarado State Bank, it was said3 

*In view ot our oonatltutional and statutory 

prorlslons conoernlng homestead rights, ue have 

oonoluded that in this state the hameatead 1s to 

be rugarCed as an aatete oraatad not only for the 

proteotlon of the faidly as a rholo, but ror the 

units ot tha family, inoludlng those who surrire, 

and embracing t&o hesb.or the rmailp at the time 

or its dissolution, whether the dlesolutlon has 

been brought about by death or by dleperaal, as 

dlstixguirphed from a ~ere.:prlvllege aocorded the. 

head or the rmy ror the banerft or the rsmilp 

as a whols." 

mit3 0piniolr or the court or cirir, hppedii, 275 

a. Y. 157, oontalns,a.rulL statement or the raots in the 

0880 rrcfifi whioh.the roregoing quotation was.taken, 

Wn May 31,: 1901, a divorce was &atcted in 

the dlstrlat aourt or Johnson county,~TaL:ln ~. ;..; 

raror 0r~carrie Woods againat 3. Di'WoWs; YAt 

the time sa.id Clvoras was granted, the said 

partieo, beIn@ husband and wire, had two ~hll.dren. 

Pearl, about 10 years or age, and a boy between 

8 .qiid 9 years.ot age, en+ bad, with said ahfldren, 

been oacupylng aa their homestea &bout'104 acrea 

or land, whlch.raa Uha aepaaste property or ap- ,' / 

pellant 3. D.,Eoods. In the alvoroe decras this 

104 acres ori lanfl,was set apart to.ap?eUant J. D. Xoods 

as his separate property, and the oustody or the two 

ohlldren was awarded to their mother, Carrie Woods. 

The ohlldren, howtavur, continued to live 011 the 

home plaoe with their rather, 2, 3 or 4 years, until Pesrl Woodrr, the girl, was 12 0T 13 years or 

age, when.they both want to Oklahoma. Paall, the 

girl never returned to live with her rather, but 

oontlnued to live In Oklahoma, where ahs married 

in 1906 when about 14 gears or age. The boy, In 

about 1906, returned to Texas, and 12ade several ,: 
Eonorable Zrnaat OtiDn - Page 5 

tripe fram Texas to Oklahoma, llring with 

his rather cr part or ths tims arid elmwhrro a 

part of the time, until. he was about 21 gears 

or age, whan ha nerrlod an4 ssttlad ln Oklahoma. 

The boy has beea mrrled and litlng in Oklahema 

10 years. The girl haa beem married and living 

with her husbsnd in Oklahosta ior the last 18 or 

20 yeurs. Butwean the data the dlvoroe was 

granted l.n 1901 an4 about 1907, and while eai4 

children, or at least one or thsm, wa8 living 

with appellant a part of the tIma, he bought 

sermal mall traots of land, aggregating about 

124 aorau, adjofninu said OriginaL 104 uares, 

making a total or about 22& aares, sl1 in one 

block. Appellant has never remarried, and ror 

the last 10 or 12 year% ha8 llvrd on said land 

alone. 

SOn July 3, 1919, appoilant J. 0. '#004s 

ereoutad his not& in the sum ot'fM.327, due and 

payable to the appellse bank on Jull 3, 1920. 

On Isarab 22, 1920, a little more than three 

months berore the maturity or eai4 note, appellant 

exoouted a deed oonteylng all of said land to his 

daughter, Era. Pearl ?ials, who resfder tith her 

husband at Fairview, Okl,, The oonsideration 

stats4 la this deed wa8 "410 paid and lore an4 

arzeotlon for daughter, an% settling with hsr ior 

her interaat in sly esta$e, valued et &OOO.* 

*Appellant havtng made default in the' paynrent of said note, eppellae bank &ought suit 

on sam, ana~reooterec a judgment against appellant ror $8,582. Thereafter, the bank cauoed 

an axeoutlon to be irsued an4 levied upon 214 

aorea of said 228 aere6, whereupon appellant and 

hla daughter, Psarl Hale, an% husbaad,~ prooured a 

taqorerp lnjunotion restraining the sale. On the 

trial or this InjunotloiLoaae berorr..ttre aourt 

without a jury, the oourt perpetuated said fajunotion aa to the 101 atsres, the land appellant owned 

at the time the divorae WAS granted, but 4Xssulvad 

said lnjunotion as to the remainder of the 214 aares, 
OP 8pprolimat.s~ 110 acres, the land aaquir64 

by appellant ester the ditoroe ~8 grant&. 

Both aidea exoepted to the judgment ot the court. 

Th6 068s iE4 befor Ue on rt3ei~~erltS by epp6&Wlt, 

eontending the whole of maid land woe 6XOStpt to 

J. D. 3oods aa a holwstsad, and theretore not 

8Ubj66t t0 SX66Utbl 8Jld, OD 0P08e*&Wm6lltS 

by Egp61166, 6O?it6nd& n0 Q8Zt Of maid lead U86 

6x611ipt to app6lf8nt a8 8 hom6stead.* 

Th6 Supreme Court hold that YVooode w&e entitled 

to his ZO&aors hmertead, and that the triti court #would 

have set 8ptWt that amount et land to him or his t6nd668.” 

Th6 fact@ %l &Id81 P. Cook, 8tlpl'8,, 8s 86t OUt 

in the Opinion 6i th6 OOUPt, are ae Xollow~r 

“b t&i8 SUit bZOU< by kf. 5.’ I>a&ti61 

against we. bt. J. C0ok, a widow, the plaintiff, 

among 0th6f *hinge, mmght to roreeloscr 8n attaohrnsnt lien upon 125 aore of lead in Jonee 

oounty, b~langiag to the defendant. 

“arrs. Cook derend6d OLI the gtouqid that 

tha land waa h6r hofia6stead, and ior~timt.reeaon 

6XISS#. Ilrr. Cook, on or about Sdptenber 17, 

1907, after Bh@ Bee-6 8 widow, aOqUbBd, by 

pUl'0~8S6. th6 ;LSDd in qUestiOn, and togethsr 

with eight m$nor children or hefa maored upon tmd 

OOOUpi6d it 66 (I home. She 8Ll6g6d that:it 

oontinued t0 b6 her holaeetsad Up tO ths,$isls Of 

the 16~ of the attaehmmt. 

"In reply to,thl?i contention, D&niel pleaded 

that Era. Cook had' long sizllre abandoned the 

prOp6rty es her hOmeotead, and had BOqUired, 

owned, end livsd tipon bth6r land.ln Taylor oountg 

end 61eewh6re, by rsaaoon whereof th6 land in 

oontroverey had long ~*inOe loot if%.hm66t6ad 

ohaTaOt6r. The 6Videnoe 8hOW8d that &a. Cook, With 

two utunarrfed daughters, aov6d rramthe farm to 

Abilene in 192i+, end had not since oooupied the 

. . . -, 
IIonomble -3l68t &Ii= - PafZe 7 

r8FR in qU98tiOL At the the suit was filed 

Mrs. Cook nith hsr alily remaining unmarri6d 

daUght6r w88 liting nith another Prarri6d dSU&iter in CallforuLa. Th6 ahI& dau&hter W8S 

about 27 Y66.W Of age. 

Vhe jury to whoa the ame ~68 8ubmitt6d 

On 6pSOi8% 18SWS rOWid tbet: ((I) m8. Cook 

with WiMXFl6d m-bore 6f he? fey had OOoupi6d the iarpS a8 a hOme8tead tar several 

yeara prior to 1923; (b),that ah6 at all tkaes 

ainoe l923 had b66n the h68d of 6 f8Isilp Ooflsisting of herself and ummrrled d6pendent ohild 

or ohildren; (a) that ehe had at 6ll tlm+a sinoo 

1923 intended to xuwe with th6 umnarri6d dependent ps41DbBr, OF i!~~berS, of h6r~ f8iUily baok 

tOthefamnandaulk6 it a &v3l%mmnth6kae iOr 

herlrslf and suoh~uunarrl6d de 

or a6abersj &her fPnilyr (d P 

sndent mamb6r, 

and that Mrs. 

Cook, 8e the h6aQ or a raraiiy, n6ver intsndod 

at any ttie to US6 8nny of the property aoquir6d 

by h6r ;a Abil6ne as P p6?6UUi6~t holDs for herself 

and unnmrried dependent nmmber, Of PBliIbW8, or 

her faally. The trial judge, aft6r rsfuaing a 

F%qU88t6d p6F6UiptOr~ iMtl7lOtiOu fOF .D8n%61, 68TS 

'judgewnt for Lls6. Cook, danring foreclosor6~ot the 

8ttadUWnt 1i6ll. Fran this judgzmnt, Daulel hea 

appea;led.* 

That p8ti'Of th6 OOWt*ll 6piniOZI ptWt8illins t0 

the qU8stiOu U6.1116 here OOlISid6Fing 1~6 aS rOllOW8: 

We ar6 further of the opinion that since 

th6 UnOOKltrOV0rt8d svidenoe showed ,thot prior 

to 1923 th6 property had been the homatead of 

34~8. Cook, and sine6 the jury found, based Upon 

6Vid6nll6 the 6UffiOf6nW of whioh i8 LIOt direotly 

ahalleng6d, Chet at all tim68 since and prior to 

the tine She ir~oved away frcraa the faX%U ah6 int8nd6d t9 mov6 baok and IS.ak6 it her horn@, and 

that in the aoqtisition and us6 of other propcarty 

in Abilene sho never intend6d to mice the latter 

-- - 
ilonorable &meet Quinn - Page 8 

her permanent home, her atatria as to the 

buaestead ereaagtion heroin asserted was the 

sane a8 if she had hexer nroved away. In 

other words, ahe aontinuously oooupied the 

property as her homestead up to end iuoluding 

the time of the levy oi the attaohnent, If 

so, thetpestlon lat 'Was it neaessar~ that 

there be any remlning aowtituent of the 

raplily other thaa Mm. Cook her8elrt This 

question, we think, must be regarded as settled 

by the opiuion in Moods v. Plvarado State B~J~c, 

118 Tax. 586, 19 8. X. (26) 35. Counsel for 

appellee, In arent, nought to ahor that the 

. difWU88iOn of this point in said opinion uaa 

dlota. A dlatinotion ia argued, baaed upon 

Bhetker the houestead Is aequfred wklle both 

husband and wire are lirlug, or by one OS the 

apouseo artier the mcrlage relation, for any 

reason, has been dissolved. It ia,uell oettled, and seem to be eoneeded, that it the 

homestead la aoguired at a time when husband 

and wife are llvlhg together, the exemption 

continue8 80 long a8 it remain8 oooupied. regardless or the raat that no aonstituent members 

or the ramllr remain, other than the eurvltor. 

%e are unable to 8ee any good reasoo for mahiog 

the distlnotion mggested. The Suprem CoUrS*8 

opinion rWmred to, we think, nust be regarded 

as holding that tbere.18 ho euek diatinotton. 

In that aaso the land in oontroversy was aaquired 

after dissolution or the z#arriage relation. The 

manner OS dissolution is unimportant. The murt*8 

opinion oould not be correct on the facta. of that 

case ii the distlnotion here lnsltited upon should 

be held to exist. The disauectrion or the point 

was, therefore, we think, not tierely diOta.” 

It seem to be tke sattled law or this St&e 

that when a honestead is ones estsblished the right8 

belonging thereto do not eeaee to exist by reQ8On Of the 

death or dispersal of the constituent members Of the 

ranily, but suck right.8 continue ror the protection or 

the slirvlving unite or the Tam.ily, inaluding the heed 
‘honorable lbne8t Ooirrn - Page 9 

02 the faatlly. Xn the Instant oaae, the unmrrled adult 

deu@ter and her mother, WiIilO 1iVing together, aOJIStituted a family, with the daughter as Its head. Therefore, 

we see no good reason to hold that the death of the mother 

would here the erreat of dissolving the homestead rights 

of the daughter that had been aoquirad uhlle the mother 

was liring. The faat that the dsughter is the sole aurvlvor or the family Is uuinportant and lnauffiaient to 

warrant a omtrasy aonoluslon. 

We anmer your question in tkb afU.rmatlVe. 

Youra very truly