Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1979 )

The Attorney General of Texas
October 2, 1979
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Honorable Cecil Mackey, President Opinion No. Mw-6 2
Texas Tech University
P. 0. Box 4641 Re: Sale of land by Texas Tech
Lubbock, Texas 79409 University.
Dear Mr. Mackey:
You inform us that real estate belonging to Texas Tech University was
leased in 1977 to the current tenant under a lease purchase contract with an
option to purchase. The lease purchase arrangement was advertised in a
local paper for one week and the bid opening was scheduled for a few days
later. The property was leased to the highest bidder with the option to
purchase conditioned upon the passage of legislation authorizing conveyar!ce
of the property in question by the Chairman of the Board of Regents. The
sixty-sixth legislature enacted Senate Bill 213 authorizing sale of the
property “only after advertisement in at least two issues of a newspaper
published in the county in which ‘the land is located, the first such
publication to be made at least 30 days in advance of the sale date.” The
advertisement is to call for sealed bids and provide for sale to the highest
bidder. You ask whether the Board of Regents must rebid the property
before selling it or whether it may convey the property to the current lessee
without advertising the sale.
The power of the state to dispose of its property is vested in the
legislature and may be exercised bv agents of the state only under
legislative authorization. Conley v. Daugh‘iers of the Republic, 156 S.W. 197
(Tex. 1913); see also Lorino v. Crawford Packing Co., 175 S.W.2d 410 (Tex.
1943); Attorney General Opinions C-207 (1964); V-320 (1947). Prior to the
enactment of Senate Bill 213 the regents had certain specific powers with
respect to the lease or ‘conveyance of University lands, (see Educ. Code
SS 109.44, 109.45, 109.46, 109.48) but no statute authorized them to sell the
land in question. The lease-purchase contract recognizes this lack of
authority, since it conditions the purchase option on the enactment of
legislation authorizing conveyance of the land for the stated consideration.
The recently enacted Senate Bill 213 is the only legislative authoriza-
tion for the sale of this land. Its terms must be strictlv COmDlied with. See
404 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1966); Wilson v. County of Calhoun, 489
%&k%%ex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.);
p. 195
Honorable Cecil Mackey - Page Two (NW-62 1
Attorney General Opinion C-760 (1966). The Board of Regents must rebid the land and
otherwise comply with the ~requirements of Senate Bill 213.
The contingent purchase option granted in the 1977 contract is unenforceable
because no legislation has been enacted which authorizes sale of the land on the contract
terms. The Regents had no authority in 1977 to bind the state to dispose of the property in
accordance with the lease purchase contract. See State v. Ragland Clinic-Hospital, 159
S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1942). Thus. the enactmentofsenate BIB 213 does not impair the
obligation of a contract enteredinto by the state. -See Tex. Const. art. I, S 16.
SUMMARY
The Board of Regents of Texas Tech University must comply with
the terms of Senate Bill 213 in order to sell the land to which it
relates.
MARK WHITE
Attorney General of Texas
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR..
First Assistant Attorney General
TED L. HARTLEY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Susan Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
C. Robert Heath, Chairman
Martha AIlen
David B. Brooks
Susan Garrison
William G Reid
Bruce Youngblood
P. 196