Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                  ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    GREG         ABBOTT
    November         18,2003
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval                                   Opinion No. GA-0122
    Hidalgo County Auditor
    P.O. Box 689                                              Re: District attorney’s obligations as administrator
    Edinburg, Texas 78540-0689                                of forfeited real property (RQ-0059-GA)
    Dear Mr. Sandoval:
    You ask several questions about a district attorney’s responsibilities to administer real
    property that the district court forfeited to the state as contraband under chapter 59 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure.’
    An investigation by the Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) Narcotics Service
    led to the arrest of Javier Barr-era and the seizure of approximately 15,000 pounds of marijuana.2
    In 1996, the Hidalgo County criminal district attorney sought forfeiture of a residence and
    approximately 34 acres of land owned by Barr-era and others, simultaneously filing a notice of Zis
    pendens with the Hidalgo County clerk’s office.3 In April 1997, the district court rendered a
    judgment (1) forfeiting the property to the criminal district attorney and DPS according to the
    terms of their local agreement, and (2) transferring title to the criminal district attorney as agent
    for the state.4 The criminal district attorney obtained quitclaim deeds from other nominal owners
    ‘See Brief from Antonio R. Sandoval, Hidalgo County Auditor, to Nancy Fuller, Chair,                Opinion
    Committee, Office of Attorney General (May 23, 2003) ( on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter          Request
    Briefj.
    2See Brief from Honorable Rene Guerra, Hidalgo County Criminal Distric# Attorney, to Nancy Fuller,
    Chair, Opinion Committee,     Office of Attorney General, at 1 (July 7, 2003) (on file with Opinion Committee)
    [hereinafter DA Briefj.
    3See 
    id. ; see
    also Request Brief, supra note 1, at 1.
    4See DA Brief, supra note 2, at 2. In 1994, as contemplated by article 59.06, the Hidalgo County criminal
    district attorney and DPS entered into a local agreement governing the disposition of forfeited property. See Request
    Brief, supra note 1, at 1; see genera& TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. 0 59.06(a)-(c) (Vernon Supp. 2004) (providing
    for the administration    and disposition   of forfeited property pursuant to an agreement between the attorney
    representing the state and law enforcement agencies).     A “law enforcement agency,” one of the parties to a local
    agreement under article 59.06, is defined as “an agency of the state or an agency of a political subdivision of the
    state authorized by law to employ peace officers.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 0 59.01(5) (Vernon Supp. 2004).
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval         - Page 2              (GA-0122)
    during the year 2000? On January 3, 2001, the criminal district attorney leased the land to an
    adjoining landowner for $100 per month to pasture goats, terminable upon 30-days notice?
    Under chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, property used to commit certain
    enumerated offenses, the proceeds of such offenses, or property acquired with such proceeds is
    contraband subject to forfeiture. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 59.01(2) (Vernon Supp.
    2004).7 Contraband may be “property of any nature,” including real property. 
    Id. When the
    district court determines that property is contraband subject to forfeiture, the court must forfeit
    the property to the state. See 
    id. art. 59.05(e).
    A final judgment of forfeiture vests the property’s
    title in the state. See 
    id. art. 59.06(f)
    (p roviding for the perfection of title to forfeited property in
    the state). However, the trial court may not forfeit property directly to the state or the state
    treasury. See Twenty-Four Thousand One Hundred and Eighty ($24,180.00) Dollars in United
    States Currency v. State, 
    865 S.W.2d 181
    , 185 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied).
    Rather, the district court must forfeit contraband property to the attorney representing the state as
    the state’s agent. See id.; see also TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. arts. 59.05(e) (Vernon Supp.
    2004) (“the court shall order the property forfeited to the state with the attorney representing the
    state acting as the agent of the state”), 59.01(a)* (defining “attorney representing the state” as
    “the prosecutor with felony jurisdiction in the county in which a forfeiture proceeding is held,”
    certain city attorneys, and the attorney general). The attorney representing the state has the duty,
    “[o]n final judgment of forfeiture, . . . [to] dispose of the property in the manner required by
    Article 59.06 of this code.” TEX.CODE GRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 59.05(e) (Vernon Supp. 2004).
    Article 59.06 sets forth the duties of the attorney representing the state to administer and
    dispose of forfeited property. Under article 59.06(a), the attorney must administer “all forfeited
    property . . . , acting as the agent of the state, in accordance with accepted accounting practices
    and with the provisions of any local agreement entered into between the attorney representing
    the state and law enforcement agencies.” 
    Id. art. 59.06(a).
    Other provisions of article 59.06
    direct the attorney to dispose of forfeited property or proceeds in various ways, depending
    primarily on whether the attorney has a local agreement with a law enforcement                  agency
    concerning the disposition of forfeited property. 
    Id. art. 59.06(a)-(c).
    When the attorney representing the state has not executed a local agreement under article
    59.06, generally the forfeited property must be sold by sheriffs sale, certain payments and costs
    ‘See DA Brief, supra note 2, at 2.
    6See id.; Request Brief, supra note 1 (Exhibit C - “Lease Agreement”).
    7Amended by Act of May 30,2003,78th     Leg., R.S., ch. 1005, $7,2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2944, 2945-
    46 (House Bill 236); Act of May 30, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 257, 0 17,2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1163, 1169-70
    (House Bill 1743); Act of May 28, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 649, 0 3, 2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2053, 2055
    (House Bill 2138); Act of June 1, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 198, 0 2.141, 2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 611, 705-06
    (House Bill 2292).
    ‘As amendedby Act ofMay30,2003,78thLeg.,        R.S., ch. 257,§ 17,2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1163,1169-70
    (House Bill 1743); Act of June 1,2003,78th Leg., R.S., ch. 198,§ 2.141,2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 611,705-06 (House
    Bill 2292).
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval         - Page 3              (GA-0122)
    must be deducted from the proceeds, and the balance must be deposited in the general revenue
    fund of the state treasury.    
    Id. art. 59.06(a)(1)-(2).9
     If the attorney has entered into a local
    agreement with a law enforcement agency, however, the attorney has two principal options. The
    attorney may convey forfeited property to the law enforcement agency, which may “maintain,
    repair, use, and operate the property for official purposes.” 
    Id. art. 59.06(b).
    Alternatively,
    pursuant to the local agreement, the attorney shall, after deducting certain costs, deposit “all
    money, securities, negotiable instruments, stocks or bonds, or things of value, or proceeds from
    the sale of those items” into special funds to benefit the attorney’s office and the appropriate law
    enforcement agency, to be used solely for official purposes. 
    Id. art. 59.06(c)(1)-(4).
    Several of your questions concern the authority and duties of an attorney representing                   the
    state to hold and dispose of forfeited real property under chapter 59. Specifically, you ask:
    Does [the local agreement between the Hidalgo County criminal
    district attorney’s office and DPS] satisfy the provisions of Article
    59.06(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in that the District
    Attorney does not have to sell the [forfeited] property on the 75th
    day after the date of the final judgment of forfeiture of this
    property?
    Is the District Attorney        authorized    to lease the aforementioned
    [forfeited] property?
    Is the District Attorney in compliance with the state statu[t]es by
    holding the property for “. . . law enforcement . . .” before selling
    the property and distributing the proceeds as agreed to in the Local
    Agreement (Exhibit A)? If the answer to this question is yes, is
    there a maximum amount of time the property can be held?
    Request Brief, supra note 1, at 2. The local agreement between DPS and the criminal district
    attorney of Hidalgo County provides generally for the disposition of forfeited property, 30
    percent to the criminal district attorney’s office and 70 percent to DPS, for their respective
    official purposes. See 
    id. (Exhibit A
    - “Local Agreement”). The local agreement does not detail
    the methods the criminal district attorney may choose, as attorney representing the state, to
    administer and dispose of forfeited real property.
    ‘Income and other property obtained due to media reenactment of a crime or to the sale of property that has
    increased in value due to a crime’s notoriety must be transferred to the attorney general for a crime victim’s fund.
    See TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. 5 59.06(k)(1)-(3) (V emon Supp. 2004), amended by Act of May 28, 2003,78th
    Leg., R.S., ch. 428, $ 2,2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1673, 1673 (House Bill 406). Certain property or proceeds must
    be paid to the Health and Human Services Commission “to the extent necessary to protect the commission’s ability
    to recover amounts wrongfully obtained by the owner of the property and associated damages and penalties to which
    the commission may otherwise be entitled by law.” Added by Act of June 1,2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 198, 6 2.142,
    2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 611, 706 (House Bill 2292); Act of May 28, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 257, 5 18, 2003
    Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1163, 1170 (House Bill 1743) (to be codified at TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 59.06(p)).
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval         - Page 4              (GA-0122)
    In your first question, you are concerned that the local agreement does not comport with
    article 59.06(a) because it does not require the attorney representing the state to dispose of
    forfeited property within 75 days of judgment. Article 59.06(a) provides, in pertinent part:
    [A]11 forfeited property shall be administered by the attorney
    representing   the state, acting as the agent of the state, in
    accordance with accepted accounting practices and with the
    provisions   of any local agreement entered into between the
    attorney representing the state and law enforcement agencies. If a
    local agreement has not been executed, the property shall be sold
    on the 75th day after the date of the final judgment of forfeiture at
    public auction under the direction of the county sheriff, after notice
    of public auction as provided by law for other sheriffs sales.
    TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 59.06(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004). By its terms, article 59.06(a)
    requires a sheriffs     auction within 75 days of judgment          only “[i]f a local agreement has not been
    executed.” 
    Id. lo Under
    article 59.06(a)‘s plain language, the 75-day auction requirement is a default
    provision applicable only in the absence of a local agreement. See Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-97-091,
    at 2 (describing sheriffs sale in 59.06(a) as the “fallback” method of disposing property not
    subject to a local agreement). Chapter 59 does not contain a comparable provision for forfeited
    property subject to a local agreement.      When such a local agreement exists, the attorney
    representing   the state has discretion to administer property “in accordance with accepted
    accounting practices and with the provisions of any local agreement.” TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.
    ANN. art. 59.06(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004); see Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0075 (1999) at 1
    (advising that “so long as you administer the property in accordance with accepted accounting
    practices and with the provisions of your local agreement, you have the discretion to decide how
    to dispose of it most advantageously”).
    While no statute prescribes a deadline for disposing of forfeited property subject to a
    local agreement, it does not follow that the attorney representing the state may hold forfeited
    property in perpetuity. Unlike law enforcement agencies, the office of an attorney representing
    the state is not authorized under chapter 59 “to maintain, repair, use, and operate” forfeited
    property for the office’s own uses. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 59.06(b) (Vernon Supp.
    2004).   Article 59.05(e) mandates that the attorney “dispose of the property in the manner
    required by Article 59.06.” 
    Id. art. 59.05(e);
    see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0005 (2002)
    at 2 (“The duty of the attorney for the state is to ‘dispose of the property in the manner required
    “Despite article 59.06(a)‘s clear terms, language in one court’s opinion suggests that the 75day deadline
    applies even when forfeited property is subject to a local agreement. See State v. One Thousand DolIars ($I,OOO.OO)
    in United States Currency and One Pistol, Serial No. FC28277, 
    865 S.W.2d 164
    , 166 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi
    1993, writ denied). In One Thousand Dollars, the primary issue was whether a local agreement must be executed
    prior to the forfeiture judgment to be effective. See 
    id. at 165-66.
    While discussing that issue, the opinion suggests
    that the 75-day requirement applies regardless of the existence of a local agreement.        See 
    id. This office
    has
    considered the court’s statements to that effect in One Thousand Dollars, and concluded that they were dicta. See
    Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0075 (1999) at 2.
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval             - Page 5          (GA-0122)
    by Article 59.06 of this code.“‘). The attorney’s express duties under article 59.06 include only
    the duties to (1) administer forfeited property “in accordance with accepted accounting practices
    and with the provisions of any local agreement,” and to (2) dispose and distribute such property
    or proceeds for various specified purposes.         TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art. 59.06(a)-(c)
    (Vernon Supp. 2004). While the code does not define the scope of the attorney’s authority to
    administer forfeited property, such administration must comport with the attorney’s express
    statutory duties to ultimately dispose of property by sale or transfer and appropriately account
    for and distribute any proceeds.      See 
    id. arts. 59.05(e);
    59.06(b), (c), (g). Taken as a whole,
    chapter 59 authorizes the attorney representing the state to hold forfeited property only to
    administer it for ultimate disposition by sale or transfer.
    Thus, the controlling question is whether the authority to lease forfeited property may be
    derived from the attorney’s authority to administer it under article 59.06(a). Article 59.06 does
    not preclude an attorney administering forfeited property from leasing it. But in light of the
    attorney’s duties stated in 59.06, a lease of forfeited property must serve some administrative
    purpose, conform to the terms of any applicable local agreement, and comport with the ultimate
    goal of disposing of the forfeited property. Whether article 59.06 would authorize a particular
    lease depends on the lease’s terms and circumstances.        Pertinent considerations would include
    whether leasing the property facilitates its administration, whether the terms of the lease comport
    with an eventual sale or transfer of the property, and similar considerations.       For example, the
    criminal district attorney asserts that the property was leased to “clear the property of underbrush
    and growth” and “secure the property from potential trespassers.“”          From that statement, an
    argument might be made that leasing the property serves the administrative purpose of securing
    and protecting the property.      However, whether article 59.06 authorizes this particular lease
    requires investigating and resolving fact questions beyond the scope of the opinion process.
    See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0003 (2002) at 1 (stating that the opinion process does not
    determine facts).
    You next ask whether the criminal district attorney may lease forfeited property without
    first seeking approval from the Hidalgo County commissioners court or the state or without
    following competitive bidding procedures such as those in chapter 263 of the Local Government
    Code. I2 As noted previously, the attorney representing the state holds forfeited property as an
    agent for the state. Property administered by the attorney for the state, prior to any disposition
    under article 59.06, is state property. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 59.06(f) (Vernon
    “DA Brief, supra note 2, at 3.
    ‘2Specifically,   you ask:
    Was the District Attorney        required  to seek approval       of the Hidalgo     County
    Commissioner[s]     Court (the governing board of Hidalgo County) or the State of Texas,
    since he is considered a state employee, prior to entering into the lease agreement . . . ?
    Did the District Attorney violate the bidding laws of the [SItate of Texas          by not
    requesting sealed bids on the leasing of the property . . . , more specifically      [Local
    Government Code section] 263.00 l-Sale or Lease of Real Property?
    Request Brief, supra note 1, at 2.
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval      - Page 6            (GA-0122)
    Supp. 2004). Such property would not be county property subject to the commissioners court’s
    jurisdiction.   See Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-97-091, at 3 (property forfeited to the state is not county
    property subject to sale by the commissioners court). Moreover, article 59.06(a) largely leaves
    the means of administering forfeited property to the discretion of the attorney representing the
    state, subject to the terms of any applicable local agreement. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN.
    art. 59.06(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004). If the attorney representing the state has the administrative
    authority to lease forfeited property under 59.06(a), as discussed above, then nothing in chapter
    59 requires the attorney to first obtain approval from either the county commissioners court or
    the state.
    Chapter 263 of the Local Government Code provides generally for leasing county
    property by competitive procedures.      See TEX.Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. $8 263.001, 263.007
    (Vernon 1999 & Supp. 2004). However, property forfeited to the state and administered under
    article 59.06(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is state, not county property. Consequently,
    county bidding requirements in chapter 263 of the Local Government Code would not apply to a
    lease of forfeited property while it is administered under article 59.06(a). See Tex. Att’y Gen.
    LO-97-091, at 3 (determining that property forfeited to the state is not subject to statutes
    concerning county surplus or salvage property under 263.152 of the Local Governrnent Code).
    You have not identified a comparable state property bidding requirement that would apply to a
    lease of forfeited real property while it is administered under chapter 59, nor have we located
    such a requirement.    Thus, an attorney administering property under article 59.06(a) of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure may lease it without being subject to competitive bidding requirements.
    See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0075 (1999) at l-2 (advising that an attorney representing the
    state has discretion to administer the property in accordance with accepted accounting practices
    and with the provisions of the applicable local agreement).
    Finally, you ask whether the District Attorney was “required to remove the property from
    the tax rolls since the property now belonged to the [SItate of Texas?“13 You note that ad
    valorem taxes continue to be assessed against the property, currently amounting to $30,000.‘4
    Pursuant to article 59.06(f), title to forfeited real property vests in the state upon filing the
    Zis pendens notice. Such property is state property, and state property “used for public purposes”
    is tax exempt under section 11.11 of the Tax Code. TEX.TAX CODE ANN. 8 11.1 l(a) (Vernon
    Supp. 2004) (“property owned by this state or a political subdivision of this state is exempt from
    taxation if the property is used for public purposes”). A tax exemption under section 11.11 does
    not require an application for exemption to be effective. See 
    id. $ 11.43(a)
    (“To receive an
    exemption, a person claiming the exemption, other than an exemption authorized by Section
    11.11 . . . of this code, must apply for the exemption.“).       Consequently, assuming that forfeited
    property is tax exempt, the attorney representing the state does not have to apply for an
    exemption for it to be effective.
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval    - Page 7           (GA-0122)
    This office has previously considered whether, as a general principle, forfeited property
    held for disposition under article 59.06 is exempt from property taxes. See generaZZy Tex. Att’y
    Gen. Op. No. DM-187 (1992). We noted that in an analogous situation courts have determined
    that property obtained by tax foreclosures or tax sales and held for resale constitutes a public
    purpose, and therefore such property is tax exempt. See 
    id. at 4
    (citing State v. City of San
    Antonio, 
    209 S.W.2d 756
    (Tex. 1948); State v. Moak, 
    207 S.W.2d 894
    (Tex. 1948); City of
    Austin v. Sheppard, 
    190 S.W.2d 486
    (Tex. 1945); Eason v. David, 
    232 S.W.2d 427
    (Tex. Civ.
    App.-Beaumont       1950, writ ref d n.r.e.); Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Owens, 
    217 S.W.2d 186
    (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo      1948, writ ref d)). We concluded that “property forfeited to the state
    pursuant to chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is exempt from ad valorem taxation so
    long as the property is used for public, as opposed to private, purposes.” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op.
    No. DM-187 (1992) at 5; accord Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0026 (2003) at 3 (foreclosed
    properties held by the Veterans Land Board pending resale are exempt from ad valorem property
    taxes).
    Whether forfeited property that has been leased during its administration    under article
    59.06(a) is used for public, as opposed to private, purposes depends on resolving fact issues such
    as whether leasing the property facilitates administering        the property in anticipation    of
    disposition, as discussed previously. See TEX.TAX CODE ANN. 5 11.1 l(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004);
    see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0571 (2002) at 1 (stating that whether the use of land leased
    from a hospital authority satisfies the exclusive public use requirement would necessarily
    involve investigation    and resolution of facts). Such a factual determination     is beyond the
    purview of the opinion process. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0003 (2002) at 1 (stating that
    the opinion process does not determine facts).
    Mr. Antonio R. Sandoval    - Page 8           (GA-0122)
    SUMMARY
    An attorney representing     the state must administer
    property forfeited under chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure consistent with accepted accounting practices and
    with the terms of any local agreement with a law enforcement
    agency. Forfeited property subject to a local agreement must
    ultimately be disposed of by sale or transfer of the property to a
    law enforcement agency, but there is no statutory deadline for
    the disposition. There is no statutory deadline for disposing of
    forfeited property subject to a local agreement.
    An attorney representing the state may lease forfeited
    property only if the lease is consistent with the local agreement
    and with the attorney’s statutory duties to ultimately dispose of
    property by transfer or sale and to distribute any proceeds
    under article 59.06 of the code. Forfeited property subject to
    administration    under article 59.06(a) of the code is state
    property. The attorney representing the state need not obtain
    approval from the county commissioners court or the state to
    execute a lease within the attorney’s authority to administer
    forfeited property under article 59.06(a). Statutory bidding
    requirements do not apply to such an attorney’s authority to
    administer forfeited property. To the extent forfeited property
    is exempt from ad valorem taxation, the attorney representing
    the state need not apply for an exemption for it to be effective.
    BARRY R. MCBEE
    First Assistant Attorney General
    DON R. WILLETT
    Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
    NANCY S. FULLER
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Williarn A. Hill
    Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: GA-122

Judges: Greg Abbott

Filed Date: 7/2/2003

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017