EA~~ORNEY GENEMAL 

OF TEXAS 

I)ear Sir: Opinion No. O-4931 

Re: Whether man living in one county 

may claim his ranch in another 

county az his homestead. 

Your request for an opinion on the above question 

reads as follows: 

"A man is employed and maintains a residence in 

'4' county. He owns no real estate in 'A' county. 

He owns a ranch in 'B' county. Although he has never 

maintained his principal residence on the ranch, he 

and his wife, on various occasions have spent several 

days and nights on the 'B' county property. 

!'I shall thank you to advise me whethwor not, 

in your opinion, this msn Is entitled to a homestead 

exemption from State taxes on the 'B' county real 

estate." 

The situation presented in your letter is not such 

that it may be said az a matter of law that the ranch either 

is or is not this man's homestead. Whether or not certain 

property constitutes the homestead of a family is largely determined by the intention of the hesd of the family, together 

with the particular circumstances which may tend to establish 

or discredit such intention. For this reason we cannot give 

a categorical answer to your question. 

The essential elements of a homestead and the rules 

applicable thereto are set out in our opinions Numbers o-1638 

and o-4164, copies of which are attached hereto. By way of 

supplementing these opinion3 we shall discuss a few~additional 

authorities which we believe to be peculiarly applicable to 

your question. 

(ct. 

In Taylor Feed Pen Company v. Taylor National Bank, 

of Civ. Appeals, 1915) 181 3.W. 534, (Judgment and modified 

on other grounds by the Commission of Appeals, 215 S. W. 850) 
Honorable Tom A. Craven, page 2 O-4931 

the court announced the following rule at page 540: 

"While actual residence is not necessary under 

all circumstances to fix the homestead character upon 

land, a mere intention to occupy land some time in 

the future as a homestead, unaccompanied by any act 

clearly evidencing such intention, is not sufficient 

to attach to such land the homestead character.' 

(Authorities cited) 

In Parker v. Cook, (Court of Civil Appeals, 1909) 122 

S.W. 419, the facts were quite similar to those presented in 

your question. Mr. Cook owned a 61. acre farm in Red River 

County, which was adequately equipped to serve as a home for 

himself and family, which he designated as his homestead. He 

and his family never actually occupied this property but instead he moved to Fort Worth, where he followed his trade as 

a carpenter. ,It appearing that Mr. Cook was unable to make a 

living at his trade of carpenter while living on the Red River 

County farm, the Court held that such farm could not conztitute his homestead, being unfit a,z to him to meet the requirements of a home. Said the court: 

II 

. . . The tract of land was a farm; but Cook 

was a carpenter, not a farmer. He Intended to occupy the farm whenever conditions changed so that he 

could go there and make a living for his family and 

money to pay his debts. Such a time might never come. 

There was no evidence to show that there was any good 

reason for expecting it in the near future. To sustain the homestead claim in this caze would be carrging the effect of intention alone beyond the limits 

fixed by any adjudicated case we have examined. . ." 

In First Coleman National Bank of Coleman v. Childz, 

Eastland Court of Civil Appeals, 1938) 113 S. W. 

writ refused) the court declared: 

(2d) 602, 

"Under the circumstances of this case, the 

mortgagor, or Child3 and his wife are estopped to 

assert the homestead claim to the 200 acres in 

question, regardless of the fact that the husband, 

after moving from the farm to the city property, 

made certain uses of the farm for raising stock and 

agricultural products, both of which were consumed 

in the maintenance of his family while residing in 

the city property. In other words, the use of rural 

land by a city or.town resident does not in itself 

support homestead claims therein. Alexander v. Wilson, zupra; Roberts v. Cawthorn, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 

477, 63 S. W. 332." 
Eonorable Tom A. Craven, Page 3 0 -4931 

In Nunn'z textbook on "Texas Homestead" at page 95, 

the following prerequisites for the acquisition of a homestead are laid down: 

"There is no constitutional or statutory provision directing the manner by which the homestead character is impressed upon lands other than the ztipulatier,: 'provided, that the zame shall be used for the 

purposes of a home, or as a place to exercise the calling or business of the head of the family.' In the 

judicial interpretation and application of this provision it has become well settled that the homestead 

character is impressed upon property: (a) by the actual 

use and occupancy of the property as a homestead; (b) 

or by a present intent to so use and occupy the same, 

coupled with acts of preparation, demonstrating such 

intent. 

"Intent, in itself, will not impress the homestead character upon property, but such intent must 

be accompanied with a preparation, demonstrating such 

intent; and the said acts of preparation must be prosecuted with reasonable diligence to the extent that, 

within a reasonable time, they will result in the 

actual use and occupancy, or else it will be deemed 

that the intent to zo use and occupy has been abandoned. Ultimate, actual use and occupancy of the 

prs;:ertg as a homestead is contemplated in all cazes. 

If the intent be abandoned before the occup5jncy begins,, no homestead rights are acquired. . . 

While the facts submitted in your letter are inadequate 

to permit us to answer your question as a mattter of law, we 

believe the foregoing authorities support the following conclusions which may guide you in the determination of the question: 

1. If the man has never actually maintained his principal residence at the ranch in "B" county so as to impress it 

with the character of a homestead, occasional visits of several 

days are ineffectual to accomplish such a purpose. 

2. If the man hss no immediate intention of terminati~g his employment in "A" county, and if the ranch in "B" county 

is not suitably located as a residence while engaged in such 

emPloymen~t in 'A" county, then the ranch cannot constitute his 

:homestead. 
Honorable Tom A. Craven, page 4 0 -4931 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Walter R. Koch 

Walter R. Koch 

Assistant 

WRK:AMM:wc 

ENCLOSURES 

APPROVED NOV 13, 1942 

s/Gerald C. Mafin 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman