Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1941 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Jack Borden
County Attorney
veatherford, Texas
Dear Sir:
Tn your letter
oertaln sxplanatory faot
response to two qimrtiona a
sred payment of
ike to have an opinion on the
"(3) In a ease where the owner of prop-
erty does not sign a rendition for the Batno,
but said property la aaaeassd by the Tax
iiaaesciorand Colleotor and plaoed on ths rolla
at suah atmemment, in the name of the last
k~ov``c.wner,and the tar rolls are appmved
by the Ibard ot Bqualieation over a period
Bonorabla Jaok Borden, I”ags2,
of sever81 years, under such praotloe onn the
Ccaai``iommi Court, upon applloation of the
heirs, or a purohasacof auoh property, under
authority:of Artiole 7350, legally reduoe the
aaseaoed valuation of suah property for the
years the taxes are dsllnquent?
"(8) If the above question irsannrered
in the afffmatlre, then would the owner or
ownma of auoh propsrty be entitled to pay the
delinquent taxes of said reel estate on the
valuea rixed by the Commlseloners Court in
It.8 reduatione, plu8 the 6s intereat, as pro-
vid8d in House Bill No. 78 of the 47th Legis-
lature.*
From your letter we gather that the only possible
irregularity claimed in aonneotlon with the nmklng with
the aa8ea8ment IS that it was an offlas a8888ment, whioh
x8 pr88u!aai8 that the Tax Ams888or did not oall at the
proporty owner88 rasidenae or plaoo of businese for the
purpO8e of obtaining 6 li8t of the tsixpayer'apaoperty. If
this oon8tituted an irrqularity we are of the opinion that
suah irregularity was not oi such materiality as to make
the aaeewmmnt void. From the opinion of the Au8tl.n Court
of Civil Appeal8 in Killer8 * Mutual Fire Ineuraho8 Company
9. Auatl.5,201 S. Vi.825, we quote:
"The sixth and @109Ollth 88fSi&IMl~nt8 Of
error8 are not sup;::orted by a 8tatwnant euffiolent
to oall $09 0onslderation. If the sxoeption of
whloh meatlon ia made was ever oon8idered and
pareed upon by the trial ciourt,the 8iJateItieht
falls to rebrealit. :;ea:e not called upon to
seareh the reoord to eupplament the statement.
lbtwer, the tenth aseignment is a8 to a rlnd-
ing by the oourt to the etfeot that notloe was
not given to appellant by appellee that the prop-
8rty was plaO8d oh the as8essment rolls, and that
would probably be eufriclent. It is not olalmed
that the value of the property was improperly as-
eeseed or that any injury was suffered tram the
failure to give notloe. Appellant haa no oause
for oomplaint on aaoount of laok of riotia6. Ae
8aid by Cooley (page 60):
honorable Jaok Borden, Page 3
wt``h3re a law imposea a tax or aw38ement
upon propetty aooording to it6 value, notloe
of every etep In the tax proo8edlnge Is not
neoueary; the owner Is not deprived ot prop-
erty without due process of law if he has an
opportunityto question the validity or the
amount of aueh tax or aa8e88ment either berore
thut amount la i'lnallydetermined or In Subsa-
quent proNedIIAg8 for its aolleotlon.~"
See also Meifter 9. City ol San Antonio, 195
S. 14.93Z, and City of Eouaton v. Stewart, 90 S.W. 49. Xe
alao refer to Artiole 7193, ReVi8ed OlvIl Ststutes, rrad-
in&?a8 fOllOW8:
*In all oa8e6 of idlure tibobtain a rrtato-
ment of real and personal property fram any
oau80, the al)L8esor of taxes shall aeoertain
the amount and value o? auoh property and ae8ess
the lame aa he believes to be the true and full
value thereof; and 8uoh a8eessment shall be as
valid and bindIng aa If suah property had been
rendered by tipsproper owner thereor."
fn our opinion No. o-1468 w* sxpr688ed the *Ien
that ifand In8ofar ae etlol8 7300, Revised Oidl Statutes,
attempts to allow a reassesetmentof tares by the 0011d8SiOl+
erm* oourt on unknown and unrendered pI%p8rty, wNoh atv8eaa-
msnt wae not originally void, the 8WBe is ulmon8titutionrl,
but that Insofar as suoh ArtIole purporte to allow a reas-
sessment In oa,sea where the ori(pind aas8Sement was void the
8MB 18 aonetItutlona1. Vie have already said that In our
opinion the aasesaaent In whhiohyou are Interested was not
origInally void. Lien08our anewer to your iirat question
,Irra negative one, making It unneoassaryto anewer your other
question. We encloee copy of our OpiniOn No. 0-146Z, and note,
from your letter that yog already have a oopy of OUT opinion
No. O-930 In v:hIchwe held that ,trtiole734Bb, Vernon*8 &no-
tated Civil Statutea, 1~ unconstitutional.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GEXERAL CP Tiias
GRL:W
TI-JCLOSURE