**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 
**OROVER 8ELLERI** 

**. AWORH~** 

**QarmAL**

Hon. Oeorgs & Sheppard Comptrolleror Public Accounts Austin, Texas Dear sir: OpinionHo. O-7020 Rot Claesifloatlon or dlrorord dim ror inh8ri8anoe pUrpO8%?.. Tour roque8t ror opinion on th haa been given Oarsrul oonaldrration b The recta statedare, brlsrly, his firat rita, rho had threr o tins ago, and a oompl~topartlt munlty property **at** that time remarriad,and deoedant in h quest8 to **the** tormer nira. wife alaim that she rhould 88 A r0r inherltanae tax oites the roil Ler1le v* O’Hal Co, v, Riohard State, 61 SW ringrellort.
p&inent here, reads

adopted ohild or -ohlllineal desomdaat ~of adopted of the decedent,or to the htw- ) or the wire of a son, the tax per cent or **any** value in excess **Thouiand** Dollar8 ($25,000),**6to.O**

**me fa0tO**  **ia tlm**  CWalr 0886, 130 S3(2) 379, were these : urn. Hattie O'Hair,the party asssrtihg the

## 86

Hun. George Ii,

Shrppard - P8gr 2
right to ba plaoad ln OLaa A, 18 tha rurvlving 

## wit8 (not hat- maarrird) or Will O'Ealr who dlrd in 1919. To them was born a aon, who was livLT at thr tim8 or the trial. Will O*Hair was the. 8011 or H. J, and Mary O*Halr,who dlrd in 1936 and 1937, resprotivrlg,raoh teetatr,and eaoh leaving a brquest to hfr8. Hattie O%ir.

be plaord

be**an** Thr 00~8, in dbdding 6% thi8 8Umri~& Wire 8hOuld ti ah88 lib88idl “The trend of deolrionand logislationha8 to givr 8 llboral oonstruotlonof and to.llberalizr the statute in the interest or thoarhavlnR some 1bRltlmatroharaotsrof claim to tbr donor's bounty and thir regardleasor whether there be a legal kin: 8hip by blood or marriage. ”

. . . *In thr generalityor **case8 -**  **- and**  **Ln OhtS8ify**  ing for taxing purpose8onlg~thagsnez%lity can. be taken Into aooount - - ths oon8iderations whloh would motivatea rather - or loother-ln-law t0 provld8 ior the daughter-in-law would be at least aa cogent after aa before the death of the am. So aleo would **br** the conrideratiorQ3

motlvatlng lsglslatlvsolaselfloation in thL8 regard. The88 oonrldrration8.z are 10 obvious 

### as aot to reqtilre rtatemsntor elaboration.
We think thereforeths~leglslativaintent to meka no di8tinOtiOIl betweenthe wifa Of a living husband and bbs 8WViVill@ wife of **a** deceased husband oan ba drawn from tha artlolrwithout doing violence to **it8** langu+sr.w
"m8 **8wXtS itmu**  **US08** tho **eXpmsSiOn Wir8**  i.n the 88m 0r widow **or** 8univing tire 0r th0 dOOea8eb. And thi8 i8 JlOt an MOOPIBY)~ **U%S Of**  **WirO,** rxorpt when, eontaxtuallyor otherwise,it is olear that it **W68** intendedto be used ln Ita atriot lexloal meaning.

” (Emphaslraddrd)
It cannot **ba** questionedthat the court errived at a most dsslrab1.a **result,** a reeultwhich had due regard for the rqultabla oonsideratlonsof the cam.Y¶on, Oearge H. Sheppard - Page )

**We** 40 not is81 that ths oar4 or **Awrioan** Generel Xnruranoeaompeny v. Riohardron **i8** in point. That **war a**  workntsn~r oompen8atIonease, and the questionwas whether the **8UrriViZlg** -Rio Or the deoeased rather Or **8** deocra8.d employee,who war not the mother of the employee,and who, after the death Of the 8mploy88'8rathar remarried,but 

### Wall later divorced,wa8 the stepmotherOf the employee within the meanlog of Seo. 6a or Art, 8306, as amended in 1923. l&e 1923 amendment to Art, 6306 pormltted the lnoluslonas benerloiarlesthereunder "parent8an4 8&epmOther,without regard **to the**  **question of**  **dspon4enoy. ”**  In the race or 8uoh speolrlcprovfalon,the Oourt said:

n Xe believeit was the legislative intent to ilici the 8tepmotherin the sam category in every respeot as the mother In so rar as ooncerns the benefitsof the **Actr** and that for this **purpeaa** the relationwas no more sorer,84 by death or the rather in the one case than in the other. , . *
Nor do we feel that StrlngfellOw v, State can ar**teot** the question now before ~8, That was a murder oase wherein one or the ground8 0r the motion ror new trial ohallengedthe oompCtenoy**of** one **Hanks, a**  **juror. Hank8**  an4 the 4404a8adhad married rirat **4OU8iJl8l** the wire **0r** deoeasedha4 die4 somr year8 prior to the trial, leaving **tW0 SOlI**  **a8 i8SUS.**  or th arrinal relatIonship,the Court 8aldt *Exoept ior the iesueresultant**or** the marriage betwren deoeasedan4 his wife, the death or aaid wire Would have tetinated the rslatlonship. Under the authoritier,it seeme that by rea8on of the lseuo the relationshipIs extended beyond the death of the rpouee. Undsr the-saw, as it **18** underrtoodin **ttii8 8t4t4,**  **m&8** and 4eceaae6, by ma8on 0r their wires being riret **iou8lna. war0**  relate4by **arrlnltg.** , , , The oontentlonby the stat. that the relationbhlpceasedon the death of the wife oi the decaarsdwocld be well taken in the l baenoe or issue ot the marriageibut as applied to this oase the Ineistmsntis incorrect, beoaase or thr birth end 8LlrT1Ving or the children

### 88

Hon. GeorgsB. Sheppard - Pace 4

or the marriage. The proporltionthat the relatlonehlpexist8 by reason Or the 188~s is 8upported by the weight of authority. *
It oan be 8een reedlly that thr rule8 or arrinlty and Interest,leading to prejudioe or pOesIb prejudloe of a .JurorIn a murder oa8e can heve but littlebearing upcn the oonetruotlon of a taxi= statute, 4speOiellywhen the **$aXing Etatut**  **18 as**  **8pbOtriO** 

### a8 **18** ths one before **08.**

La8 ue ooneider the erfect of the divorce upon the relation or the deoedentand his firstwife in the ease before us. It is said In 15 Tex. Jur. 560, sea. 93:

*In Tsxas, a **decree** of dlvoroe la absolute from the date of its entry unless **set** aside or appealed rrom. It has the leRa1 8fraCt Of ooncluslvely eatabllehlngthe **rtatus of**  the partier, ae 8ingle i!!i%%’ operating,It has been 8-d 1 dt -

the nurriaR8 r616tiOu.” (%~piaeir~i~d~~) s

In Stuart v. Cole, 92 SX 1040, the oourt said that a deorae of divoroe “terminatesthe marriagerelation.n

Regarding the relative status of the father an4 mother toward their ohll4renafter divorce,end the **effect** or 4Ivoroeupon the 8tatur of the wife, the Court in Gully v. Gully, 184 SW 555, 559, said:

When a divorce takes place he (the father) la rtrlppedor this mpsrlor authority,the **Wife Is**  ezmnoipate4from her rubordination, and
with .ell

the rlRhtts

or a rem8 s0le.~(2
I.n Shookv. Shook, ‘145 SW 682, which was a disput8 betweendivorced parent& over rerponribilityfor rup- ;;b;,0r ohll4ren,and the **8i3tU8 Of**  the parents,the **Court**

“Arter thr renditionof the **judgment for**  divorce,J. 0. Shook’8 8tatuewae tbat or an unmrrled man, the relationwith his wife having been severed,and she then oonstituted no part of h$s iably. *

### 89

Hon. George H, Sheppard - Page 5

The exlstenos of issue, vel non, has no bearlng whatever upon the finality of a deorre of dlvoroe. The dlvoroed wire thereattar **is** a rem4 sole, **ir** no part **0r** the family oi the husband, ha8 no obligation to him, nor hss he any obligation to her. Both are 8Ingle person8 ior all purposes. The question8 0r 188ue, or llabillty ror support of tha **155~3,** have no bearing on the case berom **U8.** Under these authorities, the divorced wife ia not a pareon “having come legitimate character of claim to the donor’s bounty”, and consequently there Is no occaslcn for a liberal construction of Article 7118, assuialng arguendo that there is room for construotlon Or the nzanlng **0r** “wife” to attempt to’inclu5e the for:ner wife within the class~flcation thereln provided for. A divorced wife cannot be Inoludsd within the designation “wire** without doing violence to the language of the statute and to the legislative intent. It is the opinion of this department, therefom , that the divorced wife properly should be claslified as such ‘other personn referred to In Article 7l22, and that she is subject to the provisions thereor. Yours very truly,
ATTORNZY CZNXRALOF TEXAS 

# By d&f& Arthur L. Moller

Assistant