I._ .- .
THE ATJTORNEY GPCNEPQAE
OF TEXAS
March 3, 1975
Tbe Honorable Carlos F. Truan Opinion No. H- 543
Chairman, Committee on Human
Reaourcer Re: Constitutionality of certain
House of Representatives portions of article 3183c, V. T.
P. 0. Box 2910 c. s.
Austin, Texas 78767
Dear Representative Truan:
You have asked our opinion regarding the constitutionality of those
provisions of article 3183c, V. T. C. S. which permit the superintendents
of State institutions in the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation to deposit the interest or increment accruing on the invested
funds of inmates in a “benefit fund” from which the superintendent may
expend the moneys for the education or entertainment of the inmates at
the institution, ‘or for the actual expense of maintaining the fund at the
institution.
According to the Commissioner of the Department, inmates upon
admission “are encouraged to relinquish excess funds and keep only small
amounts in their possession for personal needs. ” Such funds, as well as
any received after admission are, according to statute, deposited in the
institution’s Trust Fund account and credited to the respective inmates.
The interest earned on these invested funds is placsd in the institution’s
Benefit Fund, and it is this accrued interest which is the subject of
inquiry here.
The statute specifies that moneys in the Benefit Fund should be
utilized for the entertainment and education of the inmates of an institution.
The Commissioner believes that “few of the patients and students have
actual knowledge of the use to which interest earned on their funds is
applied, ” and he states that the inmates in no way give their consent to
the use of these funds.
p. 2438
. I .
The Honorable Carlos F. Truan page 2 (H- 543)
The Standard Operating Procedures Manual of the Department
(March 1, 1972) requires that:
. . . [e]ach expenditure must stand on its own as
being of general benefit to the population of the
institution. This does not mean or imply that
every patient or resident must benefit from each
expenditure from the Benefit Fund. The guiding
principle in expenditures of these funds is that
no partiality or preferential treatment is shown
individuals or selected groups of residents or
patients. Expenditures from Benefit Funds must
be properly documented to show the exact purpose
and, if practical, to show the names of the patients
or residents benefiting from the expenditure.
If an inmate’s relinquishment of his “excess funds” represents a
valid contract, then the statutory effect of that agreement --the subsequent
transfer of the accrued interest on those funds into the institution’s Benefit
Fund-- must be deemed constitutional and valid, regardless of how the
interest is ultimately expended. The constitutionality of article 3183~
thus dependes upon a factual determination of the validity of a particular
inmate’s initial agreement to release his excess funds, and any funds
received thereafter, into the institution’s Trust Fund account.
There are three possible grounds on which an inmate might seek to
avoid the contract whereby the consents to place his funds in the institution’s
Trust Fund account: mental incapacity, undue influence, and mistake of
law.
It is a fundamental principle of contract law that each party to a
contract must be legally competent and able to bind himself under an
agreement. Phelps & Johnson v. Zuschlag, 34 Tex. 371 (1871). A person’s
mere presence, however, in a mental mstitution is not determinative of
the question of mental capacity to contract. Article 5547-8363 V. T. C. S.,
provides that:
p. 2439
. . .
The Honorable Carlo8 F. Truan page 3 (H-543)
The judicial determination that a person is mentally
ill or the admission or commitment of a person to
a mental hospital, without a finding that he is mentally
incompetent, does not constitute a determination or
adjudication of the mental competency of the person
and does not abridge his rights as a citizen or affect
his property rights or legal capacity.
Likewise, mere mental weakness is not in itself sufficient to render a
person incompetent for purposes of contract. Gray v. Allen, 243 S. W.
684 (Tex. Civ. App. --San Antonio 1922, writ dism’d); Beville v. Jones,
11 S. W. 1128 (Tex. Sup. 1889). Indeed, the law will presume that each
party to a contract possesses sufficient mental capacity, and the burden
of proof with respect to overcoming this presumption rests with the party
who asserts the contrary. Swink v. City of Dallas, 36 S. W. 2d 222 (Tex.
Comm. App. 1931).
A person’s mental capacity to contract is dependent upon whether
he knows and understands the nature and consequences of his act in
negotiating the contract, and the resolution of this inquiry is a factual
determination. Fox v. Lewis, 344 S. W. 2d 731 (Tex. Civ. App. --Austin
1961, writ ref’d, n. r. e. ). The mental incapacity sufficient to void a
contract must exist at the time the contract was entered. Cole v. Waite,
242 S. W. 2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo 1951)aff’d , 246 S. W. 2d
849 (Tex. Sup. 1952).
A second possible basis for avoiding the contract is the institution’s
exercise of undue influence over the contracting inmate. Undue influence
is separate and distinct from mental incapacity, and presupposes mental
capacity to contract. Shelton v. Shelton, 281 S. W. 331 (Tex. Civ. App.
--Austin 1926, no writ). The presence of undue influence may be demonstrated
by the feeble-mindedness and susceptibility to influence of the party
challenging the contract. McKay v. McKay, 189 S. W. 520 (Tex. Civ. App.
--Amarillo 1916, writ ref’d). The combined elements of mental weakness,
undue influence, and overreaching have been held sufficient to set aside
a conveyance. Meyer v. Swift, 11 S. W. 378 (Tex. Sup. 1889). Further-
more, when one party to a contract stands in a fiduciary or confidential
p. 2440
._ .
The Honorable Carlo8 F. Truan page 4 (H- 543)
relationship to the other, the agreement will be carefully scrutinized
by the courts, and the burden will be on the party in whan confidence
has been reposed to show that the contract is just and reasonable, that it
is supported by adequate consideration, and that it was freely entered into
by the other party. Coon v. Ewing, 275 S. W. 481 (Tex. Civ. App. --Beau-
mont 1925,writ dism’d); Wells v. Houston, 57 S. W. 584 (Tex. Civ. App.
1900,no writ).
An inmate aggrieved by the operation of article 3183~ might also
contend that, at the time he transferred his funds into the institution’s
Trust Fund account, he was ignorant of the statute’s existence and effect.
It is of course true that all persons of sould mind are presumed to know
the law, Worthen v. Peoples Loan and Homestead Co., 150 S. W. 2d 830
(Tex. Civ. App. --Galveston 1941,no writ), and that a mistake by a party
to a contract as to its legal effect is generally no ground for equitable
relief. Moore v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 136 S. W. 570 (Tex. Civ.
App. 1911, no writ); Kelley v. Ward, 58 S. W. 207 (Tex. Civ. App. 1903).
aff’d , 60 S. W. 311 (Tex. Sup. 1901).
But where the mistake was accompanied by circumstances tending
to show misrepresentation, imposition, undue confidence, undue influence,
mental incompetence, or surprise, relief has sometimes been granted.
Means v. Limpia Royalties, 115 S. W. 2d 468 (Tex. Civ. App. --Ft. Worth
1938, writ dism’d); Lange v. Bins, 281 S. W. 626 (Tex. Civ. App. --San
Antonio 1926,no writ) ; Leslie v. City of Galveston, 226 S. W. 438 (Tex. Civ.
APP. --Galveston 1920,no writ); Moreland v. Atchison, 19 Tex. 303 (1857).
Especially in situations where the mistake is brought about by one possessed
of superior knowledge, in whom trust has been reposed, a court of equity
may intervene. Altgelt v. Gerbic, 149 S. W. 233 (Tex. Civ. App. --San
Antonio 1912, writ ref’d). Other courts have granted equitable relief where
one party takes advantage of the other’s ignorance of his legal position and
rights. Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Buntain, 278 S. W. 503 (Tex.
Civ. App. --Amarillo 1925, no writ); Ward v. Baker, 135 S. W. 620 (Tex.
Civ. App. 1911, writ dism’d).
An inmate’s relinquishment of his funds to the institution’s Trust
Fund account, and the subsequent transfer of the accrued interest thereon
p. 2441
.. .
The Honorable Carlo8 F. Truan Rage 5 (H-543)
into the Benefit Fund, is thus a contract which is voidable on any of
these three grounds, but it is not void as a matter of law. Gaston v.
Copeland, 335 S. W. 2d 406 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo 1960, writ
ref’d. n. r. e.). Absent a particular inmate’s successful legal challenge,
the contract must be deemed valid, and the relevant portions of the truet
fund programwhich stand or fall in each particular cane upon the validity
of the initial agreement, must be upheld as constitutional.
SUMMARY
Tmss provisions of article 3183c, V. T. C. S., which
authorize the superintendent of a state institution in the
Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retarda-
tion to “deposit any funds of inmates in his possession in
any bank . . . [to] deposit the interest or increment
accruing on such funds in a . . . ‘benefit fund, ’ of which
he will be the trustee . . . [and to] expend the moneys in
any such fund for the education or entertainment of the
inmates of the institution, or for the actual expense of
maintaining the fund at the institution!’ are constitutional
on their face, but may be voidable by aparticular inmate’s
showing that the initial relinquishment of his funds into
the institution’s Trust Fund account was not a valid
contract.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
, KENDALL, First Assistant
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 2442