Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1971 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Bill T. Swanson                Opinion No. M-821
    Chairman
    Oil, Gas and Mining Committee            Re:   Constitutionality of
    House of Representatives                       H.B. 772, 62nd Leg.,
    Austin, Texas                                  R.S., 1971.
    Dear Representative Swanson:
    You have requested the opinion of this office a6 to
    the constitutionality of House Bill No. 772, 62nd Legis-
    lature, Regular Session, 1971, introduced by Representative
    E. L. Short of Lynn County, which bill is presently being
    considered by the Oil, Gas and Mining Committee of which
    you are Chairman.
    Pertinent portions of said bill are set out as follows:
    .   .   .
    "Section 2. A failure of a person
    other than an owner of the surface to
    render or pay taxes on his fee estate
    in minerals for a period of 20 years,
    or to sell, lease, mortgage, or transfer
    his fee estate in minerals for a period
    of 20 years by instrument recorded in
    the deed records of the county in which
    the fee estate in minerals is located
    with the intention of voluntarily and
    permanently relinquishing all use, claim,
    or title in the fee estate constitutes
    an abandonment of the fee estate in
    the absence of a valid leasehold estate
    any time during the 20-year period or
    exploration for or production of minerals
    during the 20-year period from the land
    or from land covered by a lease to which
    the fee estate is subject."
    "Section 3. Upon abandonment, a
    one-half undivided interest in the fee
    -3975-
    Honorable Bill T. Swanson, page 2        (M-821)
    estate in minerals referred to in this
    Act vests in the state and the remaining
    one-half undivided interest vests in the
    owner or owners of the surface estate,
    with each owner taking the same share
    and the same type of ownership which
    he has to the surface estate."
    .   .   *
    "Section 5. An owner of the surface
    estate may file a petition for declara-
    tory judgment in the district court of
    the county in which the fee estate is
    located, requesting the court to declare
    the fee estate in minerals abandoned.
    In an action for declaratory judgment
    under this Act, citation shall be issued
    and served in accordance with the Rules
    of Civil Procedure.*
    "Section 6. Evidence of a failure
    to render or pay taxes on the fee estate
    in minerals for a period of 20 years
    and to sell, lease, mortgage, or trans-
    fer the fee estate in minerals for a
    period of 20 years by instrument recorded
    in the deed records of the county in
    which the fee estate is located is
    sufficient to constitute a prima facie
    case for the petitioner in a suit for
    declaratory judgment in the absence
    of: . . . . .ll
    The elements of an abandonment are stated in 1 Texas
    Jurisprudence 2d 3, Abandonment, Section 2 to be:  (1)
    intention to abandon, and (2) an actual relinquishment.
    It is essential to an abandonment that there be a concur-
    rence of these elements. Worsham vs. State, 56 Crim. Rep. 253,
    
    120 S.W. 439
    .
    The following quotation from Corpus Juris Secundum,
    Volume 1, page 16,Abandonment, Section 7, summarizes general-
    ly the law on the subject and the statements therein contain-
    ed are supported by Texas cases, to-wit:
    -3976-
    .
    Honorable Bill T. Swanson, page 3           (M-821)
    "Nonuser of a right or property, or
    absence from land, or the lapse of time,
    while not of itself constituting an
    abandonment, may, when connected with
    other acts or circumstances, be evidence
    thereof, especially where it continues
    for such length of time as apparently
    not to be consistent with any other
    hypothesis, although even then it is
    not conclusive, but may be contradicted
    and overcome by other evidence, but the
    weight and effect to be given to such
    evidence depends on the circumstances
    and the intention of' the alleged abandon-
    ing owner, and mere absence   lapse of
    time, or nonuser is not of itself any
    evidence of abandonment unless, it has
    been held, it continues for the statu-
    tory period of limitations of actions
    to recover the right or property in
    which case there is said to arise there-
    from a disputable presumption of intention
    to abandon-- . . . . ."
    "Evidence of the nonpayment of
    taxes is not, alone, sufficient to prove
    an abandonment, but nonpayment of taxes
    may be evidence of abandonment where
    coupled with other facts or circum-
    stances showing an intention to abandon."
    Section 2 of House Bill 772, above quoted, does not
    declare the itemized acts of nonfeasance to be prima facie
    evidence of either intention to abandon or of actual relin-
    quishment.   On the contrary, said Section 2 would provide
    for automatic abandonment, except, for the question of the
    one element:   intent to abandon, which is worded as "inten-
    tion of voluntarily and permanently relinquishing all use,
    claim, or title in the fee estate."   In effect, such section
    would provide that the existence of such listed acts of
    nonfeasance, automatically and without notice, hearing
    or court action, determines the element of "actual relin-
    quishment."
    It is the opinion of this office that such automatic
    -3977-
    .   .
    Honorable Bill T. Swanson, page 4        (M-821)
    determination of this element of abandonment would work
    a deprivation of property without "due course of the law
    of the land" in violation of Article 1, Section 19 of the
    Constitution of Texas as well as the Fourteenth Amendment
    to the United States Constitution; and for such reason
    Section 2 of such Act would be unconstitutional.
    It would appear, however, that without Section 2 the
    bill would still have active provisions which need further
    consideration.
    The Courts of Texas have recognized that property
    rights in land may be abandoned:
    "It is held that one may 'except in
    the case of a perfect legal title to a
    corporeal heriditament, ' abandon 'every
    right or interest in, title to, or owner-
    ship of property,' 1 C.J.9. . . or, stated
    otherwise, there is nothing in principle,
    to prevent the owner from abandoning his
    right of property in land, provided the
    intention to do so be evidenced by an
    act or deed legally sufficient to operate
    a divestiture of this title. Dikes vs.
    Miller, 
    24 Tex. 417
    ." Carter vs. Smith,
    (Dallas Civ.App. 1916) 
    184 S.W. 244
    , 246.
    Section 5, quoted above, provides that a declaratory
    judgment may be sought and provides that the rules appli-
    cable to other cases would apply. This would call for notice,
    hearing and court action, thus meeting the requirements of
    due process.
    Section 6 provides that proof of certain acts of non-
    feasance constitute prima facie evidence of the elements
    of abandonment.  The creation by statute of a rebutable pre-
    sumption of fact is not unconstitutional for lack of due
    process.
    Insofar as the one-half interest vesting in the State
    is concerned, a question might be raised as to possible
    violation of Article 1, Section 17, Constitution of Texas,
    and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    Each of the above constitutional provisions prohibit the
    -3978-
    ,       .
    Honorable Bill T. Swanson, page 5           (M-821)
    taking of a persons property by the state or for governmental
    purposes without adequate compensation.  It should be noted
    that under the bill, with Section 2 deleted, there would be
    no taking by the State until there was a court determination
    of abandonment, and therefore, if the person has abandoned
    the property it is no longer his and he need not be compen-
    sated therefor.
    Your request makes reference to no particular consti-
    tutional provisions which you may ,be questioning: therefore,
    no further provisions will be considered in this opinion.
    SUMMARY
    Section 2 of H.B. 772, 62nd Legislature,
    Regular Session, 1971, providing for
    automatic determination of one element
    of abandonment without notice, hearing
    or court action, violates Article I,
    Section 19 of the Texas Constitution
    and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
    United States Constitution.  The balance
    of the Bill is not in violation thereof:
    neither is it in violation of Article I,
    Section 17 of the Texas Constitution
    nor of the Fifth Amendment to the
    United States Constitution.
    Yours very truly,
    CRAWFORD C. MARTIN
    Attorfley General of Texas
    BY
    Prepared by:
    Harold Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    -3979-
    Honorable Bill T. Swanson, page 6             (M-821)
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Dyer Moore
    Houghton Brownlee, Jr.
    Linward Shivers
    Rex H. White, Jr.
    Meade F. Griffin, Staff Legal Assistant
    Alfred Walker, Executive Assistant
    -3980-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-821

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1971

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017