Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

91'wE ORNET GENERAL
.OP TEXAS
Mrs. At-tie M.~ F‘ultz ”
'county Attorney, Orime!e ,county
Anderson, Text+
Dear Mrs. Fultz: Opinion No. O-6000
Re: Disposition of excess funds
received from a sale of real
estate by the State of Texas
which was formerly bought in
at a tax sale by the State and
the sale by the State being
made after the expiration of
the two-year redemption
period.
Your letter of May 1, 1944, requesting the opinion of this de-
partment on the question stated therein is as follows:
"I submit for your determination the following question
and statement of facts:
"Statement --
of Facts: After the expiration of two years
from the sale of a tract of land to the State of Texas, the
Sheriff of Grimes county sold the land for a price in excess
of the amount of the judgment and costs.
"Question: What disposition should be made of excess
funds from a sale made after the expiration of the two-year
redemption period?
"This identical question appears,to have been answered
by the Attorney General's Department ln Opinion No. O-3729
to the effect that the excess should be dletrlbuted pro rata
among the several taxing units. However, Article 7328 Re-
vised Civil Statutes, 1925, as vended, recites that the ex-
cess should be sent to the State Treasurer.
"Opinion No. O-3729 la predicated on Section p of Artl-
de 7345b, and there does not appear therein any express pro- j
vision about what to do with the excess.
Mrs. Ax-Lie M. Fults, page 2 (0-6000)
“The Caae of Booty et al v. State, 149 S. W. (2) 216,
(Civ. App.) ir directly in point, and the holding there is
that the BXCOIIIrhould be turned over to the State Treas-
urer.
“In view of the fact that there are two rtatutea re-
lating to the quertion, I will be very obliged if you will
render an oplnign clarifying the mze,”
We have carefully conalderad your requelt In connection with
the authorltiea cited therein, and our Opinion No. O-3729.’ Article 73491,
Vernon’r Annotated Civil Statutes, was enacted by the 45th Legislature,
Regular Seeeloh, 1937, Genate Bill No. 477, page 1494-a, Chapter 506.
In Opinion No. O-3729 thlr department ruled on a question identical with
the one presented In your inqulry. After quoting a portion of Article
73’+5b, it wan said:
“The above quoted article directs the Sheriff to take
the proceeds from the sale and to first pay all co&e and
then to distribute the remainder among the taxing unitr
participating In the original judgment pro rats and in
proportion to theamount of their respective tax liens
established in the tax judgment against the propefiy, We
believe this ir the method to be followed in the dlotrl-
butlon of,the money realized at the second aale regard-
less of whether the money received at raid record aale lr
insuificient to ratirfy all coete end the amount of the
original judgwnt dr whether aaid mount 1’ in excem of
the coj& and the amount of the original judmzt,”
Sectian P of Article 7345’b, Vernon’6 Annotated Civil Skatutea,
provides in part:
“* * * The 6herlff shall apply the proceeds from much
sale, fir&, to the payment of all costa in aaid unit and
all co&r and expenses of sale and reeale and all attor-
ney’a fee8 an8 reasonable expense8 taxed SE costs by the
Court in raid Nit end ehall distribute the balance among
the taxing unitr participating in aaid. original $&grnent
pro rata and in proportion to the amount of their tax
lienr against Nch property as eetabllehed in said Judg-
ment.”
We have carefully conlridered the came of Booty, et al, v. State,
149 S. W.(2d) 216, and It is noted that this suit was filed in 1932 a8
provided by Article 7326, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutea, and that
on October 12, 1932, judeplent was rendered foreclosing the tax lienj and
on February 7, 1933, after notice of sale aa required by Article 7328,
Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, the land was rrold to the State of Texas
for the amount of the taxes.
Mrs. Artle M. Fultz, page 3 (o,-6000)
Assuming for the purposes of this opinion that the tax suit
end sale of the tract of land in question was subsequent to the effective
date of Article 7345b, Verx$on's Annotated Civil Statutes, the tax suit
and sale was ln accordance with the provisions of said statute. This
being true, the cane of Booty, et al v. State, supra, has no application
to the queatlon under consideration, as this case was Instituted long
prior to the effective date of Article 7&b, supra. Therefore, we are
constrained to adhere to our former ruling contained in Opinion No.
o-3729.
Youra very trdy
APPROVED
MAY10, 1944 ATTORNEXGENF3ALOFTFJAS
/a/ Geo. P. Blackburn
ACTINGATKENEYGFiRERALOFTFXAS By /g/ Ardell Williams
Ardell William
Assistant
AW:EP:IM
APPROVED
OPINION
COMMITrEE
BY /s/ O.S.
CHAIRMAN