OFFICEOFIHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN

County rttora4y 81 Plmo* %xaEaa

Dear Sir,

eanind Dollara (~3,000.00) or the 81). of all rssibenthomeataac¶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 oountiesor other poLitlcal subdivision

now reoeirfagany remissionOp State taxes, until the srpfrationor auoh period red.ssloa,&lea6 before the expirationOr-auoh period the beard or ~evarnia~ body of any oae or aore of suoh oou&~les or politicalsubdivisions Of

:,.Hoaorablo **~&nest Guirrn**  **-** Paga 2

shall hato oertifibdto 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 epplionbleto eeoh aouatp or ,polltlaalsubdivisionas'and wh4a it shall beaoau within the provisions h4zwi.w

It will ba aott that the abov4 prorislonsof our Coastltutloa

providesthat **th** exomptlonshall **apply** to 43.3. r4aldmnthonusteads “aa saw doriaed by law.* It was held la the oam or &%GJO v. Omen, SO Tar. 483, **speJrix43** throughASsoaieti**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~oashlpof 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 obligationon 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 paymentof 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 homesteadla 4 aSty, towa or tl3- lago, ihall aoneietor'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 callingor busineaaof the head of 8 taz&lp."

Under the above quoted taOta end numorouadeafalons of our appellatecourts, we think there can be no questionbut that the daughterand her aged **and** depenbent mother oonatituted ? TamllyW and the house, togetherwith t&e lot or lots ua4d in aonneotlontharsnlth,owned br tho dePghter,,$A*hioh they lived, ooAatltutedthe *resideat homestead* of th4 family while it 

### wee 60 oeoupiad,

### wltliin the ma~lng of those terns as mod in.the ooAatftutlona1proviSiOAS 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 Artiol4XXII 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 IcGo. v. Stellworth (clv. ~pp.), 100 S.,7V. 188; Hutah4nridereta1 v. Smith (COIL App.) 2l$2

5; W. 205; H'oodr

at al v. AlvaradoState 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; ChamleeV. Chaalee (Civ.App.), ll> S. WA. (2d) 290~ Rea~atruotlon **Firmno.** Corporation

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

So tar 81)

wa have beea able to ssoetitaia the eaot qaestionhae 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 ooAtinuedart,er the death of her mother la the real questionwith whioh we ~a24 here oonoarned. xr au& rights uontlaued,then your qubationneat be answered I b the affl.rmative, ior one of those ri&ts Is the exemption of the hoaeatead from 

## taxationto the extent provided iA Section l-a ot Artiolo 8 of the COAstitittiOA.

?ig think that the oa64 of Wood6 v. AlvaradoState BaAk. suprs, a6 oonstruedIn Daniel v. Cook, supra,has

, ,\HonorableErnest Otinn - Page 4

definitelysettleii this question.

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

*In view ot our oonatltutional and statutory prorlslonsconoernlnghomesteadrights, ue have oonoludedthat in this state the hameatead 1s to be rugarCed as an aatete oraatadnot only for the proteotlonof the faidly as a rholo, but 

### ror the units ot tha family, inoludlngthose who surrire, and embracingt&o 

### hesb.or the rmailp at the time
or its dissolution, whether the dlesolutlon has been broughtabout 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 statementor the raots in the 0880 

### rrcfifi

whioh.theroregoing 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

Clvoraswas 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 oacupylngaa their homestea &bout'104acrea or land, whlch.raaUha aepaasteproperty 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 separateproperty,and the oustody or the two ohlldrenwas 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.theyboth want to Oklahoma. Paall, the girl never returned to live with her rather, but oontlnuedto 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 ,:EonorableZrnaat OtiDn - Page 5

tripe **fram** Texas to **Oklahoma,** llringwith 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 beeamrrled 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 appellanta part of the tIma, he bought sermal mall traots of land, aggregatingabout 124 aorau, adjofninu**said** OriginaL 104 **uares,** making a **total** 

### or about 22& aares, sl1 in one block. Appellanthas never remarried,and ror the last 10 or 12 year%ha8 llvrd on said land alone.

SOn July 3, 1919, appoilantJ. 0. '#004s ereoutadhis not& in the sum ot'fM.327,due and payable to the appellsebank on Jull 3, 1920. On Isarab

22, 1920, a littlemore than three months berore the maturity or eai4 note, appellant exoouteda deed oonteylngall 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% settlingwith hsr ior her interaat in sly **esta$e,** valued **et** &OOO.* ***Appellant** havtngmade default in the'paynrent of said note, eppellaebank &ought suit
on sam, ana~reooterec a judgmentagainst appellant **ror** $8,582. Thereafter,the bank cauoed
an axeoutlonto be irsued an4 levied upon 214
aorea of said 228 aere6, whereupon appellantand hla daughter,Psarl Hale, an% husbaad,~ prooureda taqorerp lnjunotionrestrainingthe sale. On the trial or this InjunotloiLoaae berorr..ttre

aourt without a jury, the oourt perpetuatedsaid fajunotion aa to the 101 atsres, the land appellantowned at the time the divoraeWAS granted,but 4Xssulvad said lnjunotionas to the remainder of the 214 aares,OP 8pprolimat.s~ 110 acres, the land aaquir64 by appellant ester the ditoroe ~8 grant&. Both aidea exoeptedto the judgmentot 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 6x611iptto app6lf8nta8 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~langiagto 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 eightm$nor children or hefa maored upon tmd OOOUpi6dit 66 (I

home. She 8Ll6g6d that:it oontinuedt0 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

abandonedthe prOp6rtyes her hOmeotead,and had BOqUired, owned, end livsd tipon bth6r land.lnTaylor 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 alilyremainingunmarri6d daUght6rw88 litingnith anotherPrarri6ddSU&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** iarpSa8 a hOme8tead tar several yeara prior **to** 1923; (b),thatah6 at all tkaes ainoe l923 had b66n the h68d of 6 f8IsilpOoflsistingof herself and ummrrled d6pendentohild
or ohildren; (a) that ehe had at 6ll tlm+a sinoo 1923 intendedto xuwe with th6 umnarri6ddependentps41DbBr, OF i!~~berS,

of h6r~ f8iUily baok tOthefamnandaulk6 it a &v3l%mmnth6kae iOr herlrslf

and suoh~uunarrl6d de or a6abersj &her fPnilyr (d Psndentmamb6r, and that Mrs. Cook, 8e the h6aQ or a raraiiy, n6ver intsndod
at any ttie to US6 8nny of the propertyaoquir6d by h6r ;a Abil6ne as P p6?6UUi6~t holDs for herself and unnmrrieddependent nmmber, Of PBliIbW8, **or** her faally. The trial judge, aft6r rsfuaing a **F%qU88t6d** p6F6UiptOr~ iMtl7lOtiOufOF .D8n%61, 68TS 'judgewntfor Lls6. Cook, danring foreclosor6~ot the 8ttadUWnt 1i6ll. Fran this judgzmnt,Daulel hea appea;led.*

That p8ti'Ofth6 OOWt*ll 6piniOZI ptWt8illins

t0 the qU8stiOu

U6.1116 here OOlISid6Fing

1~6 aS rOllOW8:

We ar6 furtherof the opinion that since th6 UnOOKltrOV0rt8d svidenoe showed ,thot prior to 1923 th6 propertyhad 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 aoqtisitionand us6 **of** other propcarty in Abilene sho never intend6d to mice the latter

-- -ilonorable &meet Quinn - Page 8

her permanenthome, her atatria as to the buaestead ereaagtion heroin assertedwas the
sane a8 if she had hexer nroved away. In other words, ahe aontinuouslyoooupied the propertyas her homestead up to end iuoluding the time of the levy oi the attaohnent, If so, thetpestlon lat 'Wasit 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 opinionuaa dlota. A dlatinotionia argued, baaed upon Bhetker the houestead Is aequfredwklle 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** aoguiredat a time when husband and wife are llvlhg together,the exemption continue880 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 distlnotionmggested. The Suprem **CoUrS*8** opinion rWmred to, we think,nust be regarded
as holding that tbere.18ho euek diatinotton. In that aaso the land in oontroversy was aaquired after dissolution**or** the z#arriage relation.The
manner OS dissolutionis 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 honesteadis ones estsblishedthe right8 belongingtheretodo not eeaee to exist by reQ8On Of the death or dispersalof the constituent members Of the ranily,but suck right.8 continue ror the protectionor 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 dissolvingthe homestead rights of the daughter that had been aoquiraduhlle 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