Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    GREG        ABBOTT
    December 22, 2011
    The Honorable Jo Anne Bernal                              Opinion No. GA-0903
    EI Paso County Attorney
    500 East San Antonio, Room 503                            Re: Authority of a county attorney to enforce a
    EI Paso, Texas 79901                                      bail bond forfeiture judgment that is more than
    twelve years old (RQ-0983-GA)
    Dear Ms. Bernal:
    You ask four questions related to your authority to enforce a final bail bond forfeiture
    judgment obtained by EI Paso County (the "County") that is over twelve years old. I You first ask
    if "a bond forfeiture judgment obtained by a political subdivision of the state [can] become
    dormant." Request Letter at 2. Generally, a judgment becomes dormant if a writ of execution is
    not issued within ten years after the rendition of a judgment. TEX. CIv. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
    § 34.001(a) (West Supp. 2011). You suggest that section 52.006(b) of the Property Code may
    prevent certain judgments obtained by the County from ever becoming dormant. Request Letter
    at 2. Subsection 52.006(b) states in relevant part:
    Notwithstanding Section 34.001, Civil Practices and
    Remedies Code, ajudgment in/avor a/the state or a state agency, as
    that term is defined by Section 403.055, Government Code, does not
    become dormant. 2
    TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 52.006(b) (West Supp. 2011) (emphasis added) (footnote added). By
    statute, bail bonds are forfeited by entering judgment "that the State of Texas recover of the
    defendant the amount of money in which he is bound, and of his sureties, if any, the amount of
    money in which they are respectively bound." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 22.02 (West 2009)
    (emphasis added). While the county may be the entity to obtain a bail bond forfeiture judgment, it
    iLetter from Honorable Jo Anne Bernal, EI Paso County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General
    of Texas at 1 (July 12,2011), https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opin/indexJq.shtml ("Request Letter").
    2Government Code section 403.055 defines "state agency" as "a board, commission, council, committee,
    department, office, agency, or other governmental entity in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of state
    government. The term includes an institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, other
    than a public junior or community college." TEX. GOy'T CODE ANN. § 403.055(1)(2) (West 2005).
    The Honorable JoAnne Bernal - Page 2                   (GA-0903)
    is a judgment in favor of the state. Therefore, under Property Code section 52.006, a bail bond
    forfeiture judgment in favor of the state "does not become dormant.,,3 TEX; PROP. CODE ANN.
    § 52.006(b) (West Supp. 2011).
    However, we note that section 52.006(b) of the Property Code was enacted by the Eightieth
    Legislature in 2007 through Senate Bill 300. 4 The Legislature expressly provided that the changes
    in law made by that Act applied to "a judgment, if the judgment is not then dormant, that exists on
    the effective date of' the Act, which was April 23,2007. 5 You ask about a bail bond forfeiture
    judgment that is "over twelve (12) years old." Request Letter at 1. Without more information about
    the specific judgment in question, we cannot definitively answer whether the judgment became
    dormant before section 52.006(b) became effective and prevented the judgment from becoming
    dormant. However, if a bond forfeiture judgment in favor of the state was not dormant on or before
    April 23, 2007, then the current language of Property Code section 52.006(b) would apply to
    preserve that judgment from becoming dormant.
    Assuming that a bond forfeiture judgment can become dormant, you next ask whether a
    county may "revive a dormant judgment at any time." Id. at 2. Section 31.006 of the Civil Practices
    and Remedies Code explains how and when a dormant judgment may generally be revived: "A
    dormant judgment may be revived by scire facias or by an action of debt brought not later than the
    second anniversary ofthe date that the judgment becomes dormant." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
    ANN. § 31.006 (West 2008).6 You suggest that section 16.061 of the Civil Practices and Remedies
    Code prohibits application of "the statute of limitations [against] the state or a political subdivision
    of the state regarding the revival of dormant judgments." Request Letter at 2. Section 16.061 states
    that "[a] right of action of this state or a political subdivision of the state, including a county, ... is
    not barred by" a long list of limitations statutes. TEX. CIv. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.061
    (West 2008). Included in that list is section 31.006. Id. § 16.061 (a). Thus, the two year limitations
    period to bring a revival action after a judgment has become dormant does not apply to a political
    subdi vision of the state, including a county. The county may revive a dormant judgment at any time.
    You next ask, "[i]f the County is permitted to revive a judgment, may the County then file
    a lien based on said judgment." Request Letter at 2. Chapter 52 of the Texas Property Code
    3you ask specifically about bail bond forfeiture judgments, and we limit the opinion accordingly. We do not
    address whether the exemption in section 52.006 extends generally to political subdivisions of the state or whether any
    other judgments obtained by the county on its own behalf are exempted from dormancy under that section.
    4Act of Apr. 4, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 11, § 1,
    2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 10
    , 10.
    5Id. § 2. The changes in law also applied to "a judgment lien on record before the effective date" of the Act.
    Id. However, because you tell us that the lien was not recorded, this is not applicable here.
    "Section 34.001 provides that ajudgment becomes dormant unless a writ of execution is issued within ten years
    after rendition of the judgment. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 34.001(a) (West Supp. 2011). If a writ of
    execution is issued within ten years of rendition, the judgment becomes dormant ten years after issuance of the writ,
    unless a second writ of execution is issued within ten years of the first writ. Id. § 34.001(b).
    The Honorable JoAnne Bernal - Page 3                    (GA-0903)
    establishes the procedures to establish a judgment lien. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 52.001-.043
    (West 2007 & Supp. 2011). Section 52.001 explains that
    a first or subsequent abstract of judgment, when it is recorded and
    indexed in accordance with this chapter, if the judgment is not then
    dormant, constitutes a lien on and attaches to any real property of the
    defendant, other than real property exempt from seizure or forced sale
    under Chapter 41, the Texas Constitution, or any other law, that is
    located in the county in which the abstract is recorded and indexed,
    including real property acquired after such recording and indexing.
    [d. § 52.001(West Supp. 2011). Once the County has revived a judgment, it may apply for or
    prepare and file an abstract of the judgment, thereby establishing a lien as long as the property
    subject to the lien is not exempt from being encumbered. See id. §§ 52.002 (West 2007) ("On
    application of a person in whose favor a judgment is rendered ... , the judge ... or the clerk of the
    court ... shall prepare, certify, and deliver to the applicant an abstract of the judgment."); 52.004
    ("The county clerk shall immediately record in the county real property records each properly
    authenticated abstract of judgment .... ").
    In your final question, you ask: "If a Surety owes money on a bond forfeiture judgment in
    a Bail Bond Board County, is the Surety barred from writing bonds in a non-bail bond board county
    under the Code of Criminal Procedure [section] 17.11(2) until such time as the judgment is satisfied,
    regardless of whether the judgment is dormant?,,7 Request Letter at 2. Article 17.11 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure states:
    Sec. 1. Every court, judge, magistrate or other officer taking a bail
    bond shall require evidence of the sufficiency of the security offered
    Sec. 2. Provided, however, any person who has signed as a surety
    on a bail bond and is in default thereon shall thereafter be
    disqual~fied to sign as a surety so long as he is in default on said
    bond ....
    TEX. CODECRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.11 (West 2005) (emphasis added). Construing this statute in
    a prior opinion, this office concluded that "[a]rticle 17.11, section 2 disqualifies a surety who is in
    7Chapter 1704 of the Occupations Code establishes a county bail bond board for each county with a population
    of 110,000 or more and allows other counties to do so after meeting certain conditions. TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §§
    1704.051 (West 2004) (mandatory creation of a board for counties with a population of 110,000 or more), 1704.052
    (West Supp. 2011) (discretionary creation of a board for smaller counties). That chapter sets out a number of
    requirements for both the bail bond boards and the sureties licensed by the boards. However, since you ask only about
    a surety's ability to write bonds in a county that does not have a bail bond board, chapter 1704 is inapplicable to your
    request. See id. § 1704.002 (West 2004) ("This chapter applies only in a county with a population of: (1) 110,000 or
    more; or (2) less than 110,000 in which a board is created.").
    The Honorable Jo Anne Bernal - Page 4           (GA-0903)
    default on a bail bond from signing as a surety during the period of default anywhere in the state and,
    in effect, requires any sheriff to refuse to accept a bond from such a surety." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op.
    No. JC-0019 (1999) at 4 (emphasis added).
    Article 17.11 further explains when a surety is in default:
    A surety shall be deemed in default from the time execution may be
    issued on a final judgment in a bond forfeiture proceeding under the
    Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the final judgment is
    superseded by the posting of a supersedeas bond.
    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.11, § 2 (West 2005). The statute does not draw a distinction
    between a live or dormant judgment but instead disqualifies the surety "so long as he is in default."
    [d. The statute thereby prohibits any person who has signed as a surety on a bail bond and is in
    default thereon from subsequently signing as a surety in a county without a bail bond board until the
    default is rectified.
    The Honorable Jo Anne Bernal - Page 5          (GA-0903)
    SUMMARY
    Subsection 52.006(b) of the Property Code was enacted in
    2007 and applies to judgments that existed on the effective date of the
    Act and were not then dormant. Under the plain language of that
    provision, if the county obtained a bail bond forfeiture judgment in
    favor of the state, that judgment does not become dormant if it was
    not dormant on April 23, 2007.
    Section 31.006 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies
    Code makes the two year limitations period to bring a revival action
    inapplicable to a political subdivision. Therefore, the county may
    revive a dormant judgment at any time.
    Once a county has revived a dormant judgment, it may apply
    for and file an abstract of the judgment, thereby establishing a lien, as
    long as the property is not exempt.
    Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.11 prohibits any
    person who has signed as a surety on a bail bond and is in default
    thereon from subsequently signing as a surety in a county without a
    bail bond board until the default is rectified.
    Very truly yours,
    DANIEL T. HODGE
    First Assistant Attorney General
    DAVID J. SCHENCK
    Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
    JASON BOATRIGHT
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Virginia K. Hoelscher
    Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: GA-0903

Judges: Greg Abbott

Filed Date: 7/2/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017