OFFICEOFTREATTORNEYGbjSJERALOl" TEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable B. F. MolSee County Auditor Rldalgo County Edinburg, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. C-1170 Rer Landaold by the State to an individual, and later forfeited and ~epoeeeeeed by the State is not sub- $i9ytt0.a lien r0r tare8 that aoorued.while it was privately owned. This‘ia in reply to your letter, whzlohis as followa: “The state sold a eeotion or land

about thirty years ago whiehwas never paid out by the purohasert The etate hae nowadvised the present owner o$ the equity that they ea$eot to oa the sale for non-payment. county%: state tares have acoumulated again3t this property since 1919. Please advi44 the etatue of our taxee.again?t thla piece of property whenthe state reoover~ this land." Weaaeumethat this land was public **free** school land, andwas sold to an Individual by the State under.the term of Chapter 3, Title'06 (Articles 5300 to WisO); and that it will be forfeited and repoaseeaed by the State under Artials 5320 of that Chapter.

Such land was not subject to taxation;while owned by the State prior' to the aale to the individual, by virtue of Article VIII;Seotion 2 of the Constitutioh of Texas, andArticle 7150, Subdivls~on 4, ,of the Revised Civil Statutea.Honorable B. F. McKee, Page 2

There can be to taxation during the Ual* nodoubt that the land was subjeot period it was ownedby the individWhenthe land is forfeited and repossessed by the State, title vests in the State ahd it again has the statue it had bbrore it ~waasold. Lawless vs. wright (Clv. App.) 86 5. W. 1040; Houston 011 Companyvs. ReeseCorriher LumberCompahy(Civ. App.) l81 S. W. 745.

Aaweunderstand It, you deeire to knowthe statue of the delinquent taxee due the ooimty whenthe State reposstieses the land. Wethink that question ie answered.by’the rule of law in the case of State VS. Stovall (Clv. App.), 768. W. (2d) 206 (writ refused) in whioh it wae held that land that had reverted to the State wannot .subject to seizure and sale to satisfy delinquent aohool taxes owed on it by the individual from whomthe State had obtained it, andthe Court, in that case, said:

“et contends in this oonneotion tuna%

~‘thoughreal property may be~charged4th a lien for unpaid tares duly and legally levied by the state or by a county, munfofpality, or sohool district, whenthereafter the legal title to such property is aoquired by or veste in ‘the state, and the sdmeis used by it ‘r0r.a publio purpoim, all :

nt proc8edihga to oolleot euoh hforclng such lien are without 0ff0Gt Andy

void. The iseue of law preeented by appellant*8 contention ie apparently one of firat impression in this state, but it is supported by the great weight of authority in other jwiBdiGtions e Foster v. City of Duluth, 120 Minn. 484, 140 N. W. 129, 131, par* 2, 48 I,. R. A. (N. S.) 707; .Stat4 V4e bGk4, 29N. IL 148, 219P. 790, 792, pai. 1, 30A. Li R, 407, and note page 413; Reid v. State, 74 Ind. 252; State v. Maricopa County, 36Ariz. 347, 300P. 175; Lauren 100Miea. 335, 56So. 431, 452,;~.; ..V.. We-, b , Ann+ Gas, 1914A, 169;.State v. Snohozlsh County, 71Wash. 320, 128 P.:667, 670; par; 2; Smith vi Santa Monica, 162 Cal. 221, 121 P. 920, 921; Oachet v. City oi New .Orleans, 52La. Ann. 813, 27 BOO 348;Honorable B. F. McKee, PagO3

Gasawayv. City of Seattle, 52 Viaash. 444, 100 P. 991, 993 (bottom seoond oolwnh), 21 L. R. A. (N. Y.) 62; Independent Sohool Diet. v. Hewitt 106 Iowa 663, 75 #. ‘U. 497, 498, par, 6; 26R. C. L., pe 299, Sea. eaS, and note ~2;61 C. J., pa 945, sec. 1215. Since tha judgment reoovered by the appelles Rueklndspendent eohoolaistriot is for the colleatlon of: taxes, and the title to the property again& which it8 judgment Offoreclosure was rendered hae paseed to andvested in the Stats of **Texae,** ,andthe. 8ameis now being used by It for pub110 purpoeee, euoh property le not nowsubject to seizure and aale to satisfy such.judgmentew The holding in the Stovall.oass maaexpressly approved by the SupremeCourt. of Texas, ap.a@5ng: through Justice Sharp, in the oaee.of ’Ch$ldrelre County’vs. Stats, 127 Tax. 343.; 92S. 8. (2d) .lOll;

Prior to the decisions in the Stovall oasa and the Childrees County~oase, this department madea similar ruling in Opinion No. 2SO0, dated January 25, .1930, written byAseistant Attorney General H. Grady Chandler, during tha admlnletration of Attorney General Bobbltt, in which lt’was aa8

“We.have been unable to find any

Texas authorities onthe question rubmitted by you, Therefore, it become8 necessary to resort to ~thedeoleioilrr of other juriadiotlons.

. . “Webelieve o
. l that under the great weight of authority In thle oountry, your. question should be answered by saying that whenthe Houston Independent School District acquired rsal est&e to be used for public. @chool purpoRes, the mamathereby be&amefro4 .of any tax lien that might have prariously existed againet the sama, end it is no longer .eubject to taxation** It is our @e&ion that the samerule applies te the question before ueHonorable B. I?. McKee, Page 4

Wewant it clearly understood that w4 have ouly considerad this question from the standpoint or the status of the taxes whentheland is forfeited and repossessed by the State; andwe.are not 4xpr48Sing an opinion as to the status of these taxes whsnthe State re-sells this land, or the purchaser rrctnwhomit was forfeited re-purchases or redeems the land.

Ouranswer to your question Is that when this land i8 rors4it4a ana r4poae4ee4d **by** the State, it is not subject to a lien for asy taxes that aooruad agaisst it during the time it was privately owsad by **an** lnaivldual.

Yours very truly Al'TORNEyGRN%ALOFTRU'

w l&mm ~(8) Ceoil 0. Rotrch

AfJsistant

APPRCVND

BYOPINIONCOMKI= BY (S) R. **W.** Fi, CRAIRUUT