Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )


Menu:
  •                                            January 16, 1939
    Honorable Charles T. Banister
    Criminal District Attorney
    Corsioana, Texas
    /
    Dear   Hr.   Banister:                                      /
    opinion No. f3-60
    Re: Suit &yState    to set aside.' ,1'
    tax sale.,
    Your letter of January 10, 1939, in regard to the State
    setting aside a tax sale beoause of a grossly Inadequate price,
    was duly received by this oftioe.
    'Xe interpret your question to be whet~heror not the
    district or county attorney oan maintain a suit,or set aside
    a tax sale of real estate because the sale Frioe was grossly
    inadequate, it being less than the taxes due in this case.
    Fe understand that the sale in questioo was made under
    the proceeding prescribed in Article 7320 of the Revised Civil
    Statutes of Texas, in view of the fact that you any "that the
    sherirr had a right to refuse to acoept the bid."
    The on17 refarenoe to this question in any oi the 'stat-
    utes is in Article 7328 where it says:
    ”
    ....the acceptance by the sheriff of the bid
    shall be conclusive and binding on the question
    of the suffioienoy of the bid, and no action
    shall be sustained in any court of this State
    to set aside said sale on grounds of the in-
    sufficiency of the amount bid and accepted.
    Nothing herein shall be oonstrued as prohibit-
    ing the State, aotlng through the oounty attorney
    of the county wherein the laud lies, or its At-
    torney General, from instituting an action to
    set aside the said sale on the grounds of fraud
    or collusion between the officer making the sale
    and the Furchaser...."
    (’
    ,
    Honorable Charles T. Banister, January 16, 1939, Page 2
    We feel that this provision oonolusively prohibits the
    bringing of'a suit by the district or county attorney to set
    aside a tax sale on the grounds of inadequaoy of price alone.
    Rut, this would have been the lawsif this provision had not been
    put in the statute. There are no Texas cases, as far as we can
    find, that hold that the State can bring a suit to set aside a
    tax sale under any circumstances. The only Texas oases in ivhioh
    tax sales have been annulled have b$en suits brought by lndivi-
    dual persons with an interest in the land. Cooley on Taxation
    indioates tbnt a person with an interest can bring suoh a suit
    but that the State cannot    intain this kind of suit. 4 Cooley
    oh Taxation, 4 ed., 2949,~7says:
    "Aotions relating to tax-titles may be brought
    eithar by the tax purchaser or his assigns or
    repxesentative, or by the owner of the property
    sold‘lor taxes or his assigns or representative.
    The former are to reco,ver.,possesslon
    in aid of
    the tax-title or to confirm or quiet the tax-title.
    The latter are an attaoh on the tax-title....11
    In Article 7328, quoted above, it is provided that a
    suit may be brought by the State to set aside the sale *on the
    ground of fraud or collusion between the officer making the
    sale and the urcbaser...." If you could bring your suit under
    this provision and allege and Drove fraud or oolluslon between
    the offioer and the purchaser, you then could probabLy prove
    as evidence of the fraud and collusion the faot of inadsquaoy
    of price. W8 make this statement because the Texas cases in
    which individuals with an interest in the land have brought
    suits to set aside tax sales hold that inadequaoy of prioe
    alose will not set aside a tax sale, but that inadequaoy of
    prioe will be considered along with other irreguls~Xties.
    Rogers v. Moore, 
    100 Tex. 220
    , 
    97 S.W. 685
    ; Ross v. arouilhet,
    00 3. W. 241: Crosby v. Bonnowskv (Ct. Civ. ADD.)69 S. %'.212:
    Crosby v. Bo$owsky ISup. Ct.), 9s 'i!ex.449, Sk-& W. 47, and
    40 Tex. Jur. 263.
    Our answer to your question is that the distriot or
    oounty attorney cannot maintain a suit to set aside a tax sale
    of real estate on the grounds of :Trossinadequno7 of sale prioe
    alone; but we do hold that in a su:t by the State to set aside
    a tax sale *on the ground of fraud or.collusion between the
    officer making the sale and the purchaser*, it would be proper
    to show inadequacy ol sale price as evidence of the fraud
    Iionomble Charles T. Banister, January 16, 1939, Pa*    3
    or collusion.
    ,_~-
    Yours very truly
    -ATTORNEY   CiG=GR& OF TEXAS
    BY
    Cecil C. Rotsah
    ksistant
    ATTXXEYGEXWL    01 TQdS
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-68

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1939

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017