Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )


Menu:
  • Honorable 0. P= Lockhart, Chairman
    Board of Insurance Commissioners
    Austin, Texas
    Dear Sir:                  l33fnionNo. O-4258
    Written transfer and recording
    of vendor's lien notes deposit-
    ed with the Board of Insurance
    Commissioners or the State
    Treasurer as securities by
    certain corporations.
    We have your letter of recent date requesting the
    opinion of this Department, as follows:
    "In Articles 1302a,Secs. 2, 6; 4739;
    4740; 4741. 4743; 4777; 4859f, Sec. 7;
    4875a-5 (5J; 925; 4969;~4983; 4993; 5017e;
    5); 5025; 5029; and 5068-1,
    5022a;~3023a 't
    Sec. 6, R. C. S. of 1925 as amended, various
    provisions are made for the deposit by in-
    surance companies of securities either with
    the State Treasurer, or with this Board, or
    subject to the joint control of the State
    Treasurer and this Board, or in the join,t
    control of attorneys-in-fact for Lloyds and
    Reciprocals and custodians designated by
    this Board or the Chairman thereof. Under
    the statutes it is permissible in come cir-
    cumstances for these deposited securities
    to consist of notes and other types of ob-
    ligations secured by liens upon real estate,
    and in most or all instances the discretion
    is vested in this Board to approve such se-
    curities as sufficient for the purposes
    designated.
    1      .
    Honorable O.,P. Lockhart,   Chairman, - page 2 O-4258
    "'We-desireyour opinion upon whether we or
    the State-Treasurer, as the case,may be, are,by
    law required or authorized to insist upon the
    execution and recording of legally sufficient
    formal transfers of the obligations and liens
    to the approp-iate depository officer and to
    formally release or retransfer the same upon
    their lawful withdrawal, or whether it is suf-
    ficient that more manual possession of the se-
    curities ant;their supporting papers be deliver-
    ed to the depository officer, thus constituting
    in effect only a 'pledge'.
    11** **'I
    Under the various statutes cited by you, the Legisla-
    ture has provided that the corporations, foreign and domestic
    named, must, in order to transact business, execute bonds or
    ive securities to insure the carrying out of the contracts
    fhey make with the citizens of Texas.
    Such statutes provide that in lieu of bonds or cash,
    or other named securities, the various corporations may.deposit
    vender's lien notes, or notes or debentures secured by first
    mortgages or deeds of trust, on land of the appraised value
    named in the statute.
    In Moran v. tidheeler,27 S. W. 54, 
    87 Tex. 179
    , the
    Supreme Court again reviewed the question and cited with a -
    proval the case of Henderson v. Pilgrim. In the case of krf:
    ran
    v. Wheeler it appears that Moran purchased a vender's lien note
    against a section of land without taking a written transfer of
    the lien and having same recorded. The party who gave the ven-
    dort~slien note obtained a release of the note, and placed same
    on record, and then mortgaged the land to the mortgage company.
    The Supreme.Court, in holding that the mortgage company had a
    superior lien to the holder of the vender's lien note, used this
    language:
    "The case of Henderson v. Pilgrim, 22 Tex.,
    464, settles the law in this state that assign-
    ments of mortgages must be recorded in order to
    affect subsequent purchasers without'notice for
    a valuable consideration. * * *
    "In Henderson v. Pilgrim the court said:
    Honorable 0. P. Lockhart, -page 3 O-4258
    "'We are of opinion that assignment of a
    mortgage is a lien affecting the title to land;
    * *'* written contract in relation to land;
    * * * an agreement; * * * an instrument of writ-
    ing of and concerning land', within the mean-
    ing of our registry laws, such as ought to be
    recorded, to make it effectual against subse-
    quent purchasers for a valuable consideration,
    without notice, 'If an as:iipnmentof a mort-
    gage, because it conveys a lien upon land, is
    required to be recorded, how can it be said
    that an assignment of a vendor's lien note,
    which conveys the same character of lien,
    should not be?' * * *
    "It is the policy of the law to require
    that all matters affecting the title to lands
    ~should be placed upon public records so that
    one who seeks to purchase it may faithfully
    judge the validity of the title."
    In Wood v. Sparks, 59 S. W. (2) 361, the Supreme
    Court of Texas again wrote en the question, and reviewed the
    cases of Henderson V. Pilgrim 
    22 Tex. 464
    , and Moran v.
    Wheeler, 
    87 Tex. 179
    , and foliowed those decisions.
    In the Wood v. Sparks case it appears that Sparks
    executed a mechanicls lien note and made same payable to the
    Davis Lumber Co. The Davis Lumber Company made a written as-
    signment of the mechanic's lien, but instead of delivering
    the original note, delivered a forged note to Wood, and the     .
    transfer was properly filed and recorded. The question arose
    as to who had the superior title--klr.Wood, who obtained a
    forged note but obtained the written assignment of this
    mechanic's lien, or the holder of the original note. The
    Supreme Court held that by virtue of the written assignment
    Wood obtained the superior lien on the property, although he
    did not have the original note. In so holding the court used
    this lan uage:
    ,“(6 F: When we apply the above rule of law to the
    facts of the case at bar, there is no escape from the
    conclusion that Wood's title to the lien in question
    is superior to the title here asserted by Hubby. It is
    evident that the instruments including tht lien con-
    tract proper and the instrument designated as a 'pro-
    missory note' created and evidenced nothing but a bare
    lien against the real property therein included. These
    facts clearly appear upon the face of both instru-
    Honorable 0,.PO Lockhart, Chairman page 4 O-4258
    ments. There was no personal obligatpn
    creat~edat all. It follows that the avis
    Lumber Company had nothing to convey to
    either Nood or Hubby but a bare lien or
    claim in rem against the land. At the
    time Hubby purchaeed this lien he had
    full record notice   that it had already
    been transfel.red  and conveyed to idood,
    In other words he had fulL record notice
    that the Davis Lumber Company had already
    conveyed away the only thing they ever
    had to transfer. An examination of the
    record would have fully apprised him of
    all these facts. If the lien had been
    released at the time Hubby purchased it
    under the circumstances he did, there
    could be no question but that he would
    have been charged with notice of such
    release. We kan see no reason why'the
    same rule would not apply to a convey-
    ance of the lien that applies to its re-
    lease."
    Under the authorities above cited, it is our onin-
    ion that before the State Treasurer or the Board of In&--
    ante Commissioners can accept vendor's lien or mortgage lien
    notes as securities, it is necessary to have the lien secur-
    ing same transferred in writing, and same must be recorded in
    the county where the land is located.
    To hold otherwise would nullify the requirement of
    the Legislature that the lien notes must be secured by real
    estate in most instances of at least double the value of the
    notes. As was said in the Henderson v. Pilgrim 
    case supra
    , a
    transfer of +.henote carries with it an equitable assignment
    of‘the lien, but it does not carry with it a Zegal assignment.
    You are therefore advised that where the statute re-
    quires the Treasurer to hold the vendor's lien or mortgage
    lien notes, it is his duty to require a written transfer of
    the lien securing said notes, duly recorded, and then hold
    said notes with the transfer so recorded in his possessinn,
    under the terms of the statute.
    .    -
    Honorable 0, P. Lockhart, Chairman- page 5 0-4258
    If the statute requires the Board of Insurance
    Commissioners to retain custody of said notes, then it
    is the duty of said Board to require a written transfer
    of the lien securing same duly recorded.
    The transfer should be made in trust to the
    party holding the note, being either the State Treasurer
    or the Board of Insurance Commissioners, and when the
    notes are paid, or the depositor decides to take same
    down, the trustee can either release or retransfer the
    notes. Practically all of said statutes referred to by
    you require the Board of Insurance Commissioners to pass
    upon the security, and in most instances the statute re-
    quires the value of the land to be appraised at at least
    double the amount of the vender's lien or mortgage lien
    note being deposited as security. In order to be certain
    that the notes are a first lien on the land, it will, of
    course, be necessary for the Board of Insurance Commis-
    sioners to require an abstract to be furnished by the
    depositor. The Abstract when examined should also be
    held by the department holding the notes until same
    have been paid or redeemed.
    Very truly yours
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    Geo. W. Barcus
    Assistant
    GWB-MR/pam
    APPROVED APR 24 1942
    EFi#3R~iii!ik%``~
    ATTORNEY GENERAL
    APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE
    BY BWB, CHAIRMAN
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-4258

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1942

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017