. 

Honorable Cecil M. Pruett 

County Attorney 

Hutchinson County 

526 Weatherly 

~Borger, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-953 

Re: (1) satisfectlon of a tax 

judgment based upon taxes 

assessed against personal 

property by execution upon 

and sale of other personal 

property belonglrg to same 

owner- and within the statutory exemption from forced 

sale D 

Dear Mr. Pruett: 

(2) Authorlzatlon of tax 

collector and officers serving Writs OS Exectition to 

levy upon, seize and sell 

certain assessed personal 

property within statutotiy 

exemption from forced aale. 

As yoilr recent letter request5 our opinion upon two 

questions as above referenced, we. shall consider them Ln turn. 

The first part of your letter reads as follows: 

"The collection of delinquent ad valorem 

taxes Levied upon automobiles has become an 

issue of concern both to the citizens of this 

commnlty and to the taxing units involved. 

There are certain questions which, when 

answered, may provide a feasible and.economi.cal 

basis for the solution to the problem encountered 

in, connection with this matter. 

"The taxing unit Involved is an independent 

school district and the situation w,hich exists is 

that many of the citizens no lohger own the 

automobile upon which the tax was levied. Judgments are being taken against the persons by .. 

whom the tax is owed, which juagment lxicludes.‘a 

f’orsclosure of the tax 1l.m upon the. particular 

automobile involved. 

“CAN AN EXECUTION ON A TAX JUDGMENT BASED 

UPON w ASSBSSXD AQAINST PERSONAIiPROPERTY 
Honorable Cecil M. Pruett. purge 2 Opinion No. WW-953 

BE SATISFIED THROUGH THE EXECUTION UPON AND SALE 

OF PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT ASSESSED AS SUCH. BELONOING TO THE SAME OWNER, AND WITHIN THE EKEMPTION FROM FORCED SALE UNDER THE HOMESTEAD LAWS?" 

We ansuer this question in the negative. 

Concerning protection of property from forced sale, the 

Texas Constlt,utlon by Art. 16, sec. 49, conferred a power and a 

duty upon the Legislature as foll.ows: 

"The Legislature shal.1 have power and it 

shal.1 be its du~tg, to pro!.e?t by law from 

forced sa1.e a ce,r?:ain portion of the personal 

property of all. neads of Samllles,, er#.d also 

of unmarried adults, ma1.e and femal~e." 

In partial execution of this ,provislon, the Legislature 

specified certain personal property es exempt, by Article 3832, 

R.C.S., which we quote in pert.: 

"The following property shail be reserved 

to everg~ family, exempt- from attackiect or 

execu.tion and ever-p other specles,.of So;ced 

sale Sot: the payment of debts, except as hereinafter provided: 

"1.. The homeskead of the family. 

* 

The teijm "carriage" as used in Art. 3832 has been deftied 

to lEn,lude an crutomoblle. Parkei? v. Sweet., I.27 S.W. 881 (Tex. 

Civ. App. 1.910); I&inn v. Lenaford Inv:Co.., 36 S.W. 2d 1079 

(Tex. Clv-. App, 1931)* 

In the case of a hx. ?iRIUiz, an apparent conflict exists 

between tills exemptlon statute cm>3 Art. 7272, R.C.S., the pertinent part of which is es Soilovs: 

"All real and personal property held or 

OUn6d by any person In this Skte shall b6 

liable for all State end County Taxes due bg 

the owner thereoS,~lncludir~~tax on real estate, 

personal property and poll tax; anil the Tax 

Collector shall levy or; spy personal or real 

proper~ky to be Sound lfi his county ~to satisfy 

all del.lnquent taxes, any law .to the contrary~ 

notvlthster:dFng; " ~ " ~ " UN 
Honorable Cecil M. Pr,irs?.i., page 3 Opinion No. WW-953 

d rts. 7273 and 7274 provide for sales of personal 

property. We have found no authorities either In Texas or'.ln 

any other jurisdiction discussing the precise question you ask. 

As pointed out in. an annotation at 159 A,L.R, 461 there is a 

distlnctFon between exempting property from taxation and exempting It from seizure and sale to satisfy a ju.dgment for taxes. 

The general rule 18 that an exemptlon of property from taxation 

daes not lmpliedly exempt it from seizure and sale to satisfy 

taxes validly levied upon otherproperty or upon the person ownlx-&the tax-exempt property. u at p* 464.. This is the rule in 

Texas, Ring v. Williams, 35 S.W, 733 (Tex. Clv. App. 1896).~ 

However, statutes exempting property from forced sale, such as 

Art, 3832, have been accorded uniformly liberal constructions 

In order to effectuate their purposess as contemplated by the 

Constitution. See Smlthv. McBrvde, 173 S.W. 234 (Tex. 'Civ. 

App. 1915); Rodgers v. Feruueon, 32 Ten. 533 (1870). Had the 

Legislature Intended to remove the protection from seizure and 

forced sale afforded by Art. 3832 in the case.of a tax debt>- 

it would certainly have used specific language so indicating. 

In the absence of s-sch language, we see no basis for reading in 

such an exception.. 

The second part of your letter reads as follows: 

"In SRUGART VS. NOCONA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, 288 S.W. 2d 243 on Page 246, the Fort 

Worth Court of Xvi1 Appeals states, 'In partiqular, 

In 1929 the 4lst Legislature, by an act codified ab Art. 7328a, 

R.C.S., lmpliedlg repealed conflicting parts of Arts, 7272 to 

7283 authorleirg summary sales of real property for collection 

of delinquent taxes o plncan v. ffabler, 215 S.W. 26 155 (Tex. 

Civ. App. 1948); Amaimo v. Carter, 212 S.W. 26 950 (Tex. Clv. App. 

1948, err. ref. n.r.e.). Apparently the provisions of these 

Articles deal- wfth personal property were unaffected. See 

Shugart v. Nocona IndeDendent School District, 288 S.W. 26 243 

vex. Clv. App. 1956)e 

2 

As further zm~batantlatlon of this opinion, it Is pointed out 

that the last amendment of Art+ 7272 was by Act of the 42iid Leg. 

In 1931 (p- 237, ch.. 141, sec. lj, whereas Article 3832 was 

amended amended $0 toIta-pre8en.t. Its pre8en.t. form In 1.935 1.935 by the 44th I.egisla.ture I.egisla.ture (p. 

384, ch. 145, sec. sec. 1'). 1’). thereby thereby constltutlng constltutlng It the latest legislatl.ve islatl.ve expression expression upon the matter. matter. 39 Tex. Jur, Statutes, Statutes, 

SbC. 74. 

As further zm~batantlatlon of this opinion, it Is pointed out 

that the last amendment of Art+ 7272 was by Act of the 42iid Leg. 

In 1931 (pGl 237. ch.. 141. sec. 1). whereas Article 3832 was 
Honorable Cecil M. P,rue.tt, page 4 Opinion No. WW-953 

the tax collector can levy upon and seize and 

sell any personal property of the tax debtor, 

applying the proceeds of the sale upon the debtor's 

tax indebtedness, secured or not by a tax lien.' 

"Uy second question relates to this statement. 

"ARE BOlR TRE TAXCOLkTOR AND OFFICERS 

SERVING WRITS AUTHORIZED TO LEVY UPON AND SEIZE 

AND SELL SUCH PBRSONAL PROPERTY WREN SUCR PERSONAL PROPERTY IS WITHIN TRE EXCEPTIONS FROM 

FORCED SALE ALLOWED BY HOMESTEAD LAWS?" 

We also answer this quesklon in the negative. 

The ShuRart c.ase involved no question of exemption of 

property under homessead laws. There, non-exempt personal property of the plalritlff was seized by the school district, which 

was ~the taxing authority, and its tax assessor-collector to 

satisfy a tax which had been levied upon plaintiff's 011 and gas 

lease, while a foreclosure suit was pending. 

As pointed out above, personal property within the exemption from forced sale provided by Art. 3832 Is not subject 

to seizure and sale for a tax debt. Therefore, a speclflc, 

enforceable lien against the property assessed vould be required 

to subject it to seizure and sale. 

In the case of real property, a lien Is specifically 

given for taxes due thereon. Art. 8, sec. 15, Constitution of 

-a Texas. Art. 7172, R~.C.S. Under these provisions the homestead 

of a family may be sold for taxes due thereon, not.wlthstan.dlng 

its exemption from forced sale provided by Art. 16, sec. 50 of 

the Texas ConstFtu.tlon.. Clt of S Antonio v. TosDDemein 104 

Tex. 43 133 S.W. 416 (lgw%er there is no general'lien 

upon pehonal property‘for taxes due ttbreon. 

62 F. 26 959 (C.C.A.. Tex.. 1.9333.3 

See In re Bra-on, 

Except for specific situations, 

a taxing authority has only the right to sell after judgment on 

an ordinary wrft of execution, the levy of which will create a 

lien. Mar0 Co., Inc. v. 

1943, em; 

State, 168,S.W.. 2d 510 

40 Taxation,, sec. 1 

Tex. Clv. App. 

e 

3 

There are tax liens created on personalty in specific sltuatlons. See Arts. 7048 and 7269; In re Br'annon, supra. 
. . 

Honorable Cec:il 14. Pr:.l::t i,,page 5 Opinion No, WW-953 

Art ICY?, R .C,S _ 1 provider that tares Levied by a citg 

"shall be h lien upon the property upon which they are assessed' 

and glves the assessor and collector'power "to l.evy upon any 

personal property to satisfy" such taxes. Tflere is, therefore, 

a lien UpOn specific personal property Which has been assessed 

for city taxes, 

co., 

See City of Lubbock v, South_Plalns Hardware 

111 S.W. 2d 343 (Tex. Civ, App. 1937). It was determined 

in Mission Independent School District v. Armstrong 222 3,W. 

201 (Tex.. .Com. App.. 1920) that ~the provlslons of this article 

were adopted by, reference and made avalIable to independent 3 

districts by Ar-t:. 2853, R,C;S,, 19X (now A?t:. ~2.758, R.c.s.),~ 

hool 

which then read as follows: 

"The t;-~3:scees el.ected In accorda::ce ~l'.h 

the preceding arrlcle shall be yessed ~10l ,p1d3.1 

management and control, of the free sch<>ois of 

such lnco,rporaced t;owo~ oc village, and shall in 

general be vested with Ella the powers. r.lghts 

end duties lr? regard to t.he establishment and 

maintaining of free schools, inCl?Jding T!xe powers 

end manner of t&x:a~l.lw for free school, pur-poses 

that are corlfewej by tne lavs of thlv state 

upon then Co~Jx:~'i~ m Ward of aldermen of irwor~- 

poreted cltlas end tonnes"' 

carried forward frem. %he o:d Art+ 2853 IR.C.,S. 1911), wr.lch 

adopted by reference the p.rovlalor:.s of A; '5.1. .i%if; , and upon which. 

the MiSSiOn I.3=.D~. isc.lslon was based, rt tnerafore appears that 

the cr.;y 1161; up~3~1 speclfl:: personal property assessed by aschool 

d,lstrrcf- was le.glsIaied out. of existence. Unti' the Legislature 

sees fit to provlde a method for flxlng a t.ax lien upon person.el 

property nhlch 13 erempt: from forced saie. r;i: method exists for 

enforcing the 'tax aglirimt 3uc.Q pr0pert.y.. 
. . 

Honorable Cecil M. Pruett, page 6 Opinion No. WW-953 

SUMMARY 

An Independent school district's personal 

property tax a*sessment upon property which 13 exempt 

from forced sale under Art. 3832, R.C.S., even when 

reduced to judgment, carries.wlth It no enforceable 

lien upon the specific property assessed end may not 

be enforced by seizure and sale of that property or 

exempt property which replaces It. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

By s/James R. Irlon 

James R. Irion 

Assistant 

JRI:cm:wc 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEB: 

W.V. Geppert, Chairman 

Robert Walls 

Bob Eric Shannon 

W.E. Allen 

REVIEWJZD FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

.By: Leonard Pessmore