Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

-.- ‘;
E ``OIRNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
Ronorable Conrad J. Landram
Assistant District Attorney
Houston 2, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-5656
Re: Under what circumstances may the
owner of property make partial
payments on a tax judgment that
is final?
This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 1943,
which reads as follows:
"Under what circumstances may the owner of
property make partial payments on a tax judgment
that is final?
"We have the following possible types of cases:
"(a) A single parcel of property with several
years of delinquent taxes but a lump sum judgment
for the whole. -- Can any one year plus all of the
costs be paid without paying the entire judgment?
"(b) Several separate parcels of property
separately assessed and ordered to be sold separ-
ately. Certainly each separate parcel may be re-
deemed under such a judgment."
There is no provision in the statutes for partial pay-
ment of delinquent taxes on a single parcel of land separately
assessed and which have been reduced to judgment. Therefore,
it is our opinion that, where judgment has been taken in a lump
sum for several years of delinquent taxes on a single parcel
of land, the taxes for one year plus all of the costs cannot
be paid without paying the entire judgment.
However, where a judgment has been taken for delinquent
taxes against several separate parcels of land which were
separately assessed and ordered to be sold separately, the tax
against each separate tract or parcel of land, insofar as the
right of payment is concerned, it so be regarded as a separate
tax, and may be paid without at the same time paying other
taxes. In the case of Richeg v, Moor, 249 S.W. 172, Moor
Honorable Conrad J. Landram, page 2 O-5656
owned 8 separate and dlstlnct tracts of land which were liat-
ed on the same asaeaament sheet, but ; each traot was aeparate-
lg rendered and valued. He tendered to the tax collector the
taxes due on tract8 1 to 7, but the tax collector refused said
tender and demanded payment of the taxes due on all of the 8
tracts as a Condition preoedent to acceptance. Moor filed
suit asking that the collector be requlred to accept the taxes
so tendered, and to Issue a reaelpt therefor as provided by
law showing payment of the taxes against each of said tracts
Nos. 1 to 7. Upon hearing the trial court granted the re-
lief sought and, while said case was pending in the Court of
CLvf 1 Appeals a certain questions were certifted to the Supreme
Court, among aaid questions being one as to whether the tax
collector should have accepted the tender made. This ques-
tion was answered in the afflrmatlve and, in so answering saLd
queatlon, the Supreme Court made the following holding:
“A land tax, although a portion of the gen-
era.1 taxes due by the taxpayer, is nevertheless
a separate and distinct tax agatnst the land, and
must be ao oonaidered from the initial step of ren-
dition to the finality of the tax deed under sel-
zure and sale by the sheriff or under orders of
the court. . . . . While the general rule ls that
taxes must be paid in full at one time, snd, unless
otherwtse provided by statute, a taxpayer cannot
tender a portton of the tax and demand a receipt
therefor, yet this rule is subject to some qualifi-
cat Ion. The citizen always has the right to pay
the amount of any one tax listed against him, or
as held in some ,jur~sd~ctiona, to pay the tax on
any one item or pleoe of property which has been
sepa~rately assessed, wlthout offering to pay the
taxes on other parts. . . . .
“In oonstdering the rule requiring the full
payment of the taxes, we think it an appropriate
deduotlon from the authorities to say that, where
it Le neoseea*Py for any one, In order to preaerve
unimpaired hle property rlghte, to pay the taxes
due on any separate treat or paroel of land whloh
has been eeperetely assessed, he has the right to
do so; and, where the statutes oan be oonstrued to
accompllah this end, they should be so oonetrued.
Under the aonetitutional provision before us, the
right of the aitieen to have any tract of his land
free of any llen, exaept that to aedure the taxes
1evLed against it, la an important, eubstanttal,
5norable Conrad J. Landram, page 3 o-5656
and real property right, not limited by the Con-
stitution by any obligation tc pay all other
taxes due by him. If we were to say that the
taxpayer cannot pay the taxes on one tract of his
land without paying on all, or paying all of his
taxes,.in f.tsfinal effect on him, as previously
stated, we would be awarding a lien not provid-
ed by the Constitution, or imposing a quasi-dis-
trlint not warranted by that instrument. The gen-
eral rule that all taxes due must be pal.date one
tiizeis not to be so blindly followed as to sub-
vert the plain meaning of the organic law.
"Without attempting 'coreview the statutes
composing our taxation system, we may say, gener-
ally, that three m thods are provided for securing
and collecting ta63es: First, foreclosure of and
sale under the constitution lien imposed on each
tract of land for the taxes assessed against it;
second, the summary process of seizure and sale,bg
the collector; and, third, suit for taxes, and the
levy on and sale of all lands (except the homestead)
!n satisfaction of the judgment. Having provided
these three methods of enforced collection of taxes
hy express a~ndelaborate laws, we cannot say that
R fourth method, to wit, that of retatning the lien
:zneach pn~rticulartract by refusing to take the
t?x;:sdue thereon when tendered until all taxes are
pnld, arises bg implication or in virtue of any
grznera.1rule. 'Weare of the opinion that the tax
ag-?insteach separate tract or parcel of land, in
so far as the right of payment is concerned, is to
b::?
regarded as a separate tax, and may be paid with-
out at the same time paying other taxes. Since
the right of payment exists, the statutory re-
ceipt should issue correctly describing the prop-
erty and the tax, limiting the effect, of course,
to the property actually involved and the tax act-
ually paid."
The Supreme Court was here dealing with the papent
of delinquent taxes before same had been reduced to judgment,
'outthe same principle is applicable at all times. Therefore,
it is our opinion that the tax against each separate tract or
parcel of land may be pald at any time without at the same
tjme ;r;aying
taxes on other tracts of land, even though same
mey have been included in the same judgment, and that your
question (b) should be answered in the affirmative.
Trusting that this satisfactorily answers your in-
quiry, we are
Honorable Conrad J. Landram, page 4 O-5656
Very truly yours
ATTORNEY GFiNERALOF TEXAS
By s/Jas. W. Bassett
Jas. W. Bassett
Assistant
JwB:db:wc
APPROVED NOV 8, 1943
s/Grover Sellers
FIRST ASSISTANT
ATTORN-EIYGENERAL
Approved Oplnlon Committee By s/BwB Chairman