### EA~~ORNEY GENERAL OF-TEXAS
PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY

GENERA,. December 20. 1950 ’

Non. Robert S. Calvert Comptroller of Fublic Accounts Audin, Texas Opinion No. V-l 135 Ra: Eligibility of a hounc or house trailer located ,on leased landfor residence homestead taxexemption. Dear Mr. Calvert:

**Your** request states that a recent audit of the 1950 **Tax** Roll from Victoria County reflector thatthe tax ,a8sessor-

“‘,’ collector of that county has in a number of in&awes allowe’d the taxpayer to claim a homestead exemption on a house located on leased land. In other instances the exemption war, allowed on house trailers located on leased land. Based on theB,efacb you have requested our opinion on the following queltionr:

1. Does the homertead exemption with reference to taxation (Article VIII, Section l-a. Con&itution of Texas; Article TQ4%, Section 2, Vernon’s Civil Statutes) extendtoadwelling located on leased land and occupied by thefamily as a home?

2. Is a house trailer of ouch a nature and eubject to such use as to acquire the stattu of a dwelling and come witbin the homestead exemption?

Section 51 of Article XVI of the Texas Constitution rete outtheconstitutional requirements ofahomestead asfollows:

“The homestead, not in a town or city, shall consist of not more thantwo hundred acres of land, which may be in one or more parcelr, with the improvements 

### thereon;the homestead in a city, town orvillage. shallconsistof lot or lots, not to exceed in value five thousand dollars, at the time of 

### their designation as thehomestead, without reference to tbe value of any improvements thereon; provided, that the same shall be used for the purposes of a,. 

### Your second question canuot be answered cahlpr- .icr;r&. The queationof whether a particular dw@ug ir entitled

_ 4z,~, ~,,tuexemption,from **taxation as**  the **hotMntead** of Oe owner **OCcUpp-** ,i‘ng the same amsuch is one of fact requiring indepeudent deter- ~miuatiti in each instance. Arto v. Maydole, 54 Ten. 244 (188l)t 

### #%hperCo. v. Werner, 11 S-d U&3 (Tax. Civ. App. 1937). Like-’ **~a,** whether **the homestead**  

### &trader hasbecome 

### fixed l

### et0 Hon. Robert 6. Calve& page 2 (V-1135)

home, or as a place to exercise the calling or business of the head of a family; provided alao, that any temporary renting of thehomestead shall not change the character of the **same,** when no other homestead has been acquired..

Article 3833, Vernon.8 Civil Statutes, repose there larue proviaioru in defining the term ‘homertead.e

13 ia well settled that thehomertead exem$ioa doei not.

### red upon ownership in fee of the land uponwhich $be

### etructureir rituated. Wheatlay v. 

### Griffin, 60 Tex. 209 (1883); Cul

### lerr v. James, 66‘I’ex. 494 1 S W 314(1886)f

### Fir& NatiBBank V. 0 mua4r, k41S.W. 199iTex.‘Civ. App. 1922). Any 

### poreeuory Tiatereetrn%nd less thanthe fee simple title ie 

### eufficienttoentitle a claimant to the benefito of the provi#iona 

### ofthe homertead law and 

### ‘it followalogically that the homestead right and privila~ attacher to a tenement 

### or building, coupled with the required occupancy, erected upon leaned or rented 

### premieee.” Firrt National Banh v. Dismukes. su ra. Further, apoase~aory%Itetest, even %hOUgh

Onlypermissive+ I)wafficient to support the cbini of homestead exemption where it ia peaceably held and occupied a8 a home by tie family. Birdwell v, &rleeon,~lt S.W. 446 (Tex. Civ. **Aep.** 1,902:irror 

### refq.

Nor would it appear thatthe leaae on apwticular lot or tract of land would have to be of long tima duration. Aa raid in First National Bank v. Dismukes, au ra, “where a head of a 

### -5 faniily is in the exclusive posireasion, aa ere, 

### of a lot.


### . . OcCOpied by him as a . . . homestead, it does uot 

### concernthejudgment ~’ **creditor** whether such claimant possessee a leare 

### for a kmgterm

‘ofpars or of less duration.”

You are therefore advised in aamwer to

### yoor fir8t ~ uertion thatthe homestead exemption with reference to taxation ? Article VIII, Section 1-a; Con&it&on of Texan, and Article 78488, *3&8.~) does apply to a dwelling located 

### onleaeed laud aud OCCU- 

### ,$h&bf,,a family 

### undersuch condition9 a6 to mahe it a &nemtiad.’Hon. 

### Robert S. hlvert, page 3 (v-1135)
specific propertyi8 a fact question. Alamo 

### Lumber Co, v. Walkarc 103S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Civ. 

### A&TV?).

In common acceptance the

### term ‘homestead* meanm the residence of the family, the

### place where tb honn is. 40 C.J.S. 430, Homesteads, Sec. 1. “A homestead necessarily includea the idea of a house for a 

### reeideace, or maneionhouse. The dwellingsmay be a splendid mansion, a **cabin,** or 

### tent.” Garret v. Getaendaner, 115 Okla. It, 242 Pac. 525 (1925). Coming now to a determination 

### ofwhether a house trailer 

### may meet the requiremeate necessary to make it 

### a homertead, we find only two Texas calem which have 

### pamed on the question. In thefirat came, **Clark v.**  Vitz, 199S.W.2d 736 (Tex. Civ. App. 1945,

### error **ref.),** &e **nemption** wao allowed, but the factr clearly ertablished thatthe house traileF had in effect been made a part of the claimant’s home and ‘1188 

### wed by the family 

### as a part of tbe home. In the 

### l ecoud came, Gann v. Moutl!F= **210**S.W.td 255 (Tex. Civ. 

### App. 1948,

### error ref. 

### n.r.o.), e court refused thehomelrtead exemption, sayiug~

“Aseuming for tbe purpose of 

### argumentthat appellant did have such poamermoryi&exert la the land upon which tbe trailer warnparked lo would oupport the homestead claim, we **muet decide**  **wketker** the trailer was ouch type of 

### l trucume as to aome within the rule which regard6 the houae a# part of the land, witbin tbe contemplation of the coustitutioru%lprovision.

u

. . . “It is settled that the exemption may be claimed in a house owned by the claimant, tboughtbe Iaad bslong to 

### another. Where the ownership of,ahotmeis in one person, and the ownership of the land is in 

### mother, tie house may properly **be** referred to for some 

### purposes aa a chattel, and in such a case it might properly, be aaid tbat the homertead exemption can attach to a chattel. Etutit does not 

### follow that the exemption can attach to any kind of chattel, merely because the chattel rests on a tract of land by permission 

### ofthe 

### ownerof tbe land.

. . .

.
. . . To hold that the homestead exemption applieo to tbe trailer in tbe case before us would be to.

~Rcn.Robert S. Calvert, pa~ge 4 (V-1135)

hold, as a practical matter, that it applies to almost every trailer which is occupied by the owners, if they constitute a family which does not own another home. Itis notunreasonable to assume:that they are usually parked, when they are not traveling along the highways, on some plot of groundwith the permission .~ of the owner of the ground. It might be consistent with the policy of our homestead laws to enact another law exempting automobile trailers wbich,are occupied.as homes, but.

. . there are no exemptions except those provided by law, and the courts cannot protect that which is not a homestead.”

Thus it is to be observed that the question of homestead status with respect to house trailers must be determined from all the facts and circumstances, in each individual case,. It may or ‘maynot acquire a homestead status, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances. Inour opinion the courts ” of Texas would find a house trailer tobe a homestead if located on land owned by or in which the claimant held a possessory interest. and was so used in connection with the land and occupied by a,far&)y 

### in such 

### amanneras to give it the factual characteristics of a home. On the other hand, were the trailer not so used, as in the Gann case, it would notbe held to be a homestead.

#

SUMMARY
The exemption’from taxation 'as a homestead (Article VIII, Section l-a, Constitution of Texas,, and Article 7084a, V.C.S.) extends to a dwelling’ located on leased land and occupied by thefamily as a home. Firat National Bankv. Dismukes, 241S.W. 199(Tex. cb. App;9 ouse al er **may** 

### become exempt as a homestead, depending upon the 

### facts and circumstances in each’individual case. Clark v. Vitz, ~190 S.W.td 736 (Tex. Civ.~App. 1945,error ref.); Gami

### . :;r~r~wt~~10 8.W.2d 255 (Tix.Cb. App.,1948, ” _I,, j Vert,bd) mm ,,,. / : ;~

‘PRIcEpANiEL 

### Attorney Oeneral ‘,,‘

.’ I: .,



### APPROmDt Charles D. Mathawi 

## -w.v.oeppert Fir& Aarirtant Tsxation Divhfoa Everett Hutchi~Ison Executiw Assistant 

### Price Daniel **Attorney** General
CD&&b ,

: