Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
April 10, 1939
Eononbh Ih*l@it:flitrso12
ASSiStnnt County Attorney
c near art
be that both prerlow or pxwont woupawy,ls a pre-reguirlta to
the alam ot the homestead exomgti&n frontiozwd sala or exams-
thxl.
Hon. Dwi&t i'ibltwell,
April 10, 1939, Page 2
Actual occupancy is not an aI:soluteessential In every
instance to the ripht to clalu tha homeataad cxenptlcn. Vacar.t
property may be impressed with the homestead character when the
head of a family, having no other homestead, has a definite inten-
tion, in eood faith, to occupy the came 88 such and is EfUIlreSting
such intention with actual preparatory acts in connection with
the property nuch as to clearly show such intention, the eood fail3
and the reality thereof. Brown v. Lotgu~, 7 S. fi. (2) 189; Brood-
land f. Bank, 15 S. i.. (2) 112; Jolesch i$Chaska Co. v. Hampton,
297 S. C. 271; .:splnozav. Cocke. 276 5. b. 1095; Crimea v.
Cl:f.ne,300 8. Yj. 236; Chitham v. Kemp, 60 S. W. (2) 462.
Whether the homestoad 'aremptLon
haa been establiabkdin
w & VW ~W``UIO* IS 0r W~ZS~ l q ~8ti081 0i h o t. Xt To p lc lb 0 ‘.
Smpoaalblefor a fork or aNldarit~t6 be pxypmwd b~.tho~&aptrol.la
whloh would ba applicable In all.qarre8. It uctim+.bo jtiot
. -w lmpoaslble for w, or anyone elm, to W+dou# a;&ilg.ifrom"
., uhlob ltoould be d¨ned jumt rbm'the homwtoad .rightiax%st8.,
~&alndioatedabwo 'howwar, premlw8 .meybeoow:.a rwldewe .honm-.
ibad bafore a&d phyoioaloooupaxly``under EOIW alrouwtgxaoe.u+``:
1:
:'Iai
awh 3.natanoe#,upon proper‘proof,..thetu ?x~tidn:~::be~-;".':~
axteed vilthmt 'the.- of'aiildavlts on the.identios&c$orms
farnlshed by tlie Cimptroller.