If the state takes my home through eminent domain and I have to buy a new one, can my Amendment 79 senior property tax cap follow me to the new house at the old assessed value?
Subject
Whether the Amendment 79 senior/disabled property tax cap follows a taxpayer who is forced to sell their home through eminent domain and purchases a replacement.
Plain-English summary
Rep. Robin Lundstrum brought the AG a real-world story. A 69-year-old constituent had his home taken by a state agency through eminent domain. He bought a smaller home on a similar lot. The new home has a higher assessed value, and his property taxes doubled. The constituent and Lundstrum thought Amendment 79 should "freeze" the assessment on the new home at the level of the old home in a forced-sale situation.
AG Tim Griffin's answer is sympathetic but legally clear: no. Amendment 79 does cover the new home, but it caps the new home at the new home's assessed value, not at the old home's value.
The mechanics. Amendment 79, § 1(d), caps homestead assessments for taxpayers who are 65+ or disabled. There are three triggering scenarios: (A) when a senior or disabled person buys or builds a new principal residence, the cap is set at the assessed value as of purchase or construction; (B) when a homeowner ages into 65 or becomes disabled, the cap is set on that date; (C) for those who owned their home and were already 65/disabled on January 1, 2001, the cap was set on January 1, 2001.
The constituent fits scenario (A). When he bought the new home, the cap kicked in at the new home's assessed value as of the purchase date. The text of Amendment 79, § 1(d)(1)(A) says the homestead "shall be assessed thereafter based on the lower of the assessed value as of the date of purchase or construction or a later assessed value." Nothing in the amendment authorizes carrying over the old home's assessed value to the new home, even in a forced-sale context.
The eminent domain laws also do not provide carry-over. They protect property owners through just compensation under Ark. Const. art. 2, § 22 and procedural rights under A.C.A. § 18-15-103, plus cost/fee shifting under § 27-67-317 in ARDOT condemnations. None of those mechanisms transfer an Amendment 79 assessment.
Question 2 asked what could be done to help senior Arkansans in this situation. The AG declined to give legal advice on tax-mitigation strategies (his role is to interpret the law, not to advise individuals). But he noted the General Assembly has constitutional authority to pass legislation addressing this gap, and confirmed he cannot opine on hypothetical legislation in advance.
What this means for you
If you are a senior or disabled homeowner whose home was taken or sold through eminent domain
The new home gets its own Amendment 79 cap, set at the new home's assessed value when you purchased it. Your old home's assessment does not transfer. If your new home is in a higher-value area or has a higher assessed value than your old home, your property taxes will be higher.
Practically, three things to know. First, you do still get the Amendment 79 cap going forward; once the cap kicks in, your assessment cannot be increased except in narrow circumstances. Second, the just compensation you received in the eminent domain action should reflect the fair market value of the taken home, plus relocation costs and statutory bill-of-rights protections under § 18-15-103 (and § 27-67-317 if it was an ARDOT taking). If the compensation was inadequate, that is an eminent domain remedy, not a property tax remedy. Third, the legislative channel is open: contact your state representative if you want to push for statutory carry-over of the old assessment in forced-sale situations.
If you are an attorney representing a senior in an eminent domain action
Build the just-compensation case as broadly as the law allows. The compensation should reflect not just the market value of the taken home but, where the law permits, the diminished value of replacement housing options for a senior with a fixed budget. The Amendment 79 cap-loss is not directly compensable under just compensation theory, but the practical reality (a senior buying a comparable house in today's market often pays more) feeds into the relocation analysis and the bill-of-rights claims.
If your client's replacement home has a substantially higher assessed value, raise that during settlement negotiations as a soft factor. The condemning authority may agree to a higher settlement to avoid the optics of a senior's tax bill doubling.
If you are a county assessor
The opinion confirms that Amendment 79 caps follow the rules in § 1(d)(1)(A) when a senior or disabled person buys a new home. The cap is set at the new home's assessed value at purchase or construction date. There is no statutory or constitutional authority for transferring the cap from a prior home, even in a forced-sale situation. Assess the new home at fair market value as you would any new senior/disabled purchase.
If you are a state legislator
This is exactly the kind of gap a special statute could close. Several options:
- Statutory carry-over of the old home's assessed value (or the lower of old and new) when the original sale was forced through eminent domain.
- A relocation tax credit funded through the eminent domain settlement.
- A senior-specific relocation assistance program under § 18-15-103's bill-of-rights framework.
Each has constitutional and budgetary trade-offs. The AG noted he cannot opine on hypothetical legislation, but the constitutional text in § 1(d)(1)(A) does not foreclose statutory enhancements that benefit senior taxpayers.
If you are a property tax advocate
The AG opinion crystallizes a structural gap in Arkansas's senior property tax relief: it does not protect against involuntary relocations, only against ordinary aging-in-place. Use this opinion to focus advocacy on the General Assembly. The AG also reaffirms that constitutional construction is by plain meaning (Johnson v. Wright, State v. Oldner) and that the constitution is a limitation on legislative authority rather than a grant (Wells v. Purcell, Jones v. Mears), so legislation expanding senior protection is generally permissible unless expressly prohibited.
Common questions
Q: I'm 65 and just purchased a home. Does my Amendment 79 cap kick in?
A: Yes. Section 1(d)(1)(A) caps the homestead assessment at the assessed value as of purchase or construction date. The cap can drop later if the assessed value drops, but cannot rise.
Q: My home was taken by eminent domain. Can I get a tax credit for the relocation?
A: Not currently under Arkansas constitutional text alone. Just compensation under Ark. Const. art. 2, § 22 and the statutory bill of rights at § 18-15-103 are the remedies. Some federal programs and ARDOT-specific provisions in § 27-67-317 may apply.
Q: What if I'm 65 and disabled and I owned the home on January 1, 2001?
A: Section 1(d)(1)(C) caps the assessment as of January 1, 2001 (or a later date if the assessed value has dropped).
Q: What if I become disabled while owning my home?
A: Section 1(d)(1)(B) caps the assessment on the date you become disabled (or a later date if the assessed value drops).
Q: Could the legislature change this?
A: Yes. The AG noted the General Assembly can pass legislation to assist seniors who have been forced to sell their homes, subject to constitutional limits. Whether any specific bill survives is fact-specific and would need separate analysis.
Q: My new home has a much higher assessed value than my old one. Why?
A: The new home is being assessed at fair market value as of your purchase date. Property values may have risen substantially since your old cap was set, and a smaller replacement home in today's market may actually have a higher assessed value than a larger home valued before market appreciation.
Q: Can I appeal the new assessment?
A: You can appeal if you believe the assessor's fair market value is wrong. That is an assessment dispute, not an Amendment 79 dispute. Appeal to the county Board of Equalization, then to county court, and onward as your situation requires.
Background and statutory framework
Amendment 79 to the Arkansas Constitution was adopted in 2000 and has two layers. Section 1(b) and (c) cap annual increases in property tax assessments for all real property (5% for principal residences, 10% for other real property). Section 1(d) provides a stronger protection for seniors (65+) and disabled homeowners: their homestead assessment is essentially frozen at one of three triggering values.
The three triggers in § 1(d)(1):
- (A) Purchase or construction date when the homeowner is already 65/disabled.
- (B) The 65th birthday or disability onset date, when the homeowner already owns the home.
- (C) January 1, 2001, for those who already owned the home and were already 65/disabled at that date.
The cap operates as a one-way ratchet: the assessment can drop later if the actual assessed value drops, but cannot rise above the cap value.
The eminent domain framework operates separately. Ark. Const. art. 2, § 22 requires "just compensation" when private property is taken or damaged for public use. A.C.A. § 18-15-103 provides a property owner's bill of rights with procedural protections. A.C.A. § 27-67-317 covers ARDOT condemnations, including cost and fee awards if ARDOT failed to offer a sufficient amount.
The constitutional construction principles applied: plain and unambiguous language gets its obvious meaning (Johnson v. Wright, 2022 Ark. 57; State v. Oldner, 361 Ark. 316 (2005)). The Arkansas Constitution is a limitation on legislative power, not a grant of authority (Wells v. Purcell, 267 Ark. 456 (1979); Jones v. Mears, 256 Ark. 825 (1974)). So the General Assembly can pass laws expanding senior protection unless the laws are expressly or impliedly prohibited.
The AG's structural caveat: he cannot give legal advice on how to mitigate tax obligations (private practice of law is barred under § 25-16-701), and he cannot opine on hypothetical legislation without seeing actual proposed text.
Citations and references
Constitution:
- Ark. Const. amend. 79 (homestead assessment caps)
- Ark. Const. art. 2, § 22 (just compensation)
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 18-15-103 (property owner's bill of rights)
- A.C.A. § 27-67-317 (ARDOT condemnation costs/fees)
Cases:
- Johnson v. Wright, 2022 Ark. 57, 640 S.W.3d 401 (constitutional construction)
- State v. Oldner, 361 Ark. 316, 206 S.W.3d 818 (2005) (plain meaning)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-083
January 22, 2025
The Honorable Robin Lundstrum
State Representative
Post Office Box 14
Elm Springs, Arkansas 72728
Dear Representative Lundstrum:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on the proper interpretation of Amendment
79 to the Arkansas Constitution, which caps assessments of principal places of residence for
taxpayers who are 65 years of age or older. You state that one of your 69-year-old constituents lost
his real property—his residence—when a state agency took it by eminent domain. The constituent
subsequently purchased a smaller residence on a similarly sized lot, but his new property has a
higher assessed value than his old property, doubling his real property taxes. You believe that "the
intent of [Amendment 79] in a forced sale situation [is] to keep the assessment on the new property
at the level of the old, forced sale property."
Against this background, you ask the following questions:
1. When an Arkansas taxpayer is forced to sell his or her residence through eminent domain
or other legal process, should the real property taxes associated and related to the new
residence be frozen or set at levels that are subject to and consistent with Amendment 79
to the Arkansas Constitution?
Brief response: The real property taxes associated with the new residence are subject to
Amendment 79, and they should be set at levels that are consistent with
that amendment. But Amendment 79 does not set the property value of
the new residence at the same level as that of the former residence.
2. In light of this unique situation, can anything be done to protect senior Arkansans from
similar occurrences involving their residences and a forced sale or transaction?
Brief response: While this office is charged to render legal opinions on the proper
interpretation of state law, I cannot, in the context of an official opinion,
advise entities or individuals on accomplishing certain legal goals, like
lowering their tax obligations. I will note, however, that property owners
are legally entitled to certain rights and protections when the government
exercises the power of eminent domain. The General Assembly may also
pass legislation to assist senior Arkansans who have been forced to sell
their homes, but I cannot opine on the constitutionality or effect of any
potential legislation without first reviewing the proposed language.
DISCUSSION
Question 1: When an Arkansas taxpayer is forced to sell his or her residence through eminent
domain or other legal process, should the real property taxes associated and related to the new
residence be frozen or set at levels that are subject to and consistent with Amendment 79 to the
Arkansas Constitution?
Section 1 of Amendment 79 caps the annual rate at which real property tax assessments may
increase, and it generally prevents homestead assessments from increasing if the taxpayer is
disabled or is 65 years of age or older. Specifically, Amendment 79 addresses three scenarios in
which real property tax assessments are capped for older or disabled homeowners:
1. When a person who is disabled or at least 65 years old constructs or purchases a home as
a principal place of residence on or after January 1, 2001, the assessed value of the
homestead is capped as of the date of purchase or construction, or at a later date if the
assessed value drops.
2. When a person owns a home as his or her principal place of residence and he or she
becomes disabled or turns 65 years old, the assessed value of the homestead is capped on
the person's 65th birthday, the date he or she becomes disabled, or a later date if the
assessed value drops.
3. If a person owned a home as his or her principal place of residence on January 1, 2001, and
was already disabled or at least 65 years old, the assessed value of the home is capped as
of January 1, 2001, or at a later date if the assessed value drops.
I gather that the property taxes on your constituent's former home had been capped either on his
65th birthday, on the day he purchased or constructed that home (if he purchased or constructed it
after he turned 65), or at some other later date if the value of that home decreased. Because your
constituent is now 69 and has recently purchased another home as his primary residence, the
property taxes on the new home will be capped at the rate assessed on the date of purchase, or at a
later date if the assessed value drops. Therefore, the answer to your question is "yes." The real
property taxes associated with and related to the new residence should be consistent with
Amendment 79.
However, given your statement about "the intent of the amendment in a forced sale situation," I
suspect you may mean to ask whether the assessed value of the new property should be frozen at
the same assessed value as the old property. The answer to that question is "no."
Under the rules used to interpret constitutional provisions, plain and unambiguous language must
be given its obvious and common meaning. Here, Amendment 79 explicitly directs how a
homestead's value should be assessed when it is purchased by a taxpayer who is disabled or 65
years or older: the homestead "shall be assessed thereafter based on the lower of the assessed value
as of the date of purchase or construction or a later assessed value." Nothing in the text of
Amendment 79 suggests that a taxpayer can "carry over" the assessed value of a previous
homestead to a new homestead, even when there is a forced sale. And while the laws governing
the taking of private property through eminent domain contain numerous protections for property
owners, none of these laws permit a taxpayer to transfer the assessed value from one homestead
to another.
Question 2: In light of this unique situation, can anything be done to protect senior Arkansans
from similar occurrences involving their residences and a forced sale or transaction?
To the extent you are asking for legal advice on how senior Arkansans can avoid having their tax
obligations changed following a forced sale, your question falls outside the scope of an opinion
from this office. While this office is charged to render legal opinions on the proper interpretation
of state law, I cannot, in the context of an official opinion, advise entities or individuals on
accomplishing certain legal goals, like lowering their tax obligations. But I will note that, as
mentioned above, property owners are entitled to certain rights and protections when a government
entity exercises the power of eminent domain.
You may also be asking about potential legislation to address this issue. The General Assembly
can pass legislation to assist senior Arkansans who have been forced to sell their homes. But I
cannot opine on the constitutionality or effect of any potential legislation without first reviewing
the proposed language.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby
approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General