THEATTOECNEY GENERAL I
TEXAS
Honorable Jesse James OpinionNo. c-337
State Treasurer
Capitol Station Re: Whether certain funds
Austin, Texas received by the Treasurer
may now be deposited to
the General Revenue Fund
or whether recent amend-
ments to the l&cheat
Laws require further
court action to escheat
Dear Mr. James : these funds.
You have requested an opinion of this office involving the
following question:
Whether certain funds received by the Treasurer
may now be deposited to the General Revenue Fund
or whether recent amendments to the Escheat Laws
require further court action to escheat these funds.
Your letter ,of October 7, 1964, reads as follows:
“Dursuant to provisions of Order of the Court In
Causa No. 5461 109th Dlstrlct Court of Winkler County,
Texas styled .&ate of Texas vs J. A. Drane et al
the State Treasurer received $1~,790.00 on S&ember’
28, 1959. Also, pursuant to Order of the Court,
Cause Ho. 4562, In the District Court of Childress
County, Texas covering probate matters of the g&ate
of Frank Kloskey the sum of $15;957.35 was recelved
on January 28, 1460.
“These sums have been held in suspense for the
purpose of facilitating payment of any claima that
might be made against the funds. No claims have been
made to date.
“By official opinion please advise whether these
funds may now be deposited to the oeneral Revenue
Fund or whether recent amendments to the l&cheat
La;asr$quire further court action to escheat these
-1601-
..-_ _
Honorable Jesse James, page 2 (C-337)
Judgments In the above styled cases under consideration were
entered pursuant to then existing substantive and procedural
escheat statutes of the State of Texas prior to enactment of
Article 3272a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. If, taken as a whole
and construed according to well-known rulea a judgment is
unambiguous, no room is left for interpreta$ion. Magnolia
Petroleum Co. v . Caawell 1 s.w.2a 597 (,comm.App 1928). All
property and subject matter of these actions es&ated to and
vested in the State of Texas In accordance with applicable
escheat statutes.
Section 14 of Article 3272a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, pro-
vides :
“The provisions of this Article 3272a are In
addition and supplementary to and shall not be
construed to repeal, alter, change, or amend any
of the provisions of Articles 3273 to 3289, Inclusive,
Title 53, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925,
which provide for the escheat of estates of decedents.”
Section 14 of Article 3272a specifically provides that no
changes were effected in Article 3273 through 3289, Vernon’s Civil
Statutes which prescribe administrative procedures for substantive
escheat faws enacted prior to Article 3272a. Deposit of monies
received in escheat proceedings under substantive statutes enacted
prior to Article 3272a is set forth in Article 3282 and as provided
by Article 3272a, remains unchanged.
Article 3282 provides:
“If the property recovered be personal property,
a writ shall Issue to the sheriff commanding Nm to
seize such property and he shall dispose of the same
by public auction in the manner QPOVided by law for
the sale of personal property under execution and pay
the proceeds of such sale less the costs of the
court, Into the State Treasury .I’
Roney escheated under the judgments in question entered
during January of 1959 and January of 1960 should be deposited
“Into the State Treasury” by placing said property In the General
Revenue Fund In accordance with procedures existing prior to
passage of Article 32720. Further court action Is unnecessary to
deposit this cscheated money with the State of Texas.
-1602-
Honorable Jesse James, page 3 (C-337)
Funds eecheated pursuant to judgments entered under
statutes enacted prior to passage of Article 3272a
Vernon's Civil Statutes, may now be deposited to the
General Revenue Fund, as no further court action is
necessary.
Very truly youra,
WA@3ONRR CARR
Attorney General
BY
Qoraon Houser
Assistant
QH:llll
APPROVED:
OPINION COMKITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
W. 0. Shultz
John Reeves
John Fainter
APPROVEDFOR THE ATTORNEY
QENERAL
By: Roger Tyler
-1603-
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion