Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Honorable Homer Garrison Jr., Director Texas Department of Publjc Safety Box 4087 North Austin Station Austin, sexas Opinion No. S-211 Re: Whether the State Department of Public Safety may have title to, operate aa ~aispose~of Vessels vehicles and aircraft forfeite d to it under Article 72.5a, V.P~.C., there being no bona fide lien holders or other uersonsclaim- ing any right, t&e or interest therein. Dear.Col~onel Garrison: You have requested our opinion on the following que'stion:, 9. If a vehicle upon which no lien is claimed is forfeited to the Department ,of .Publ~ic Safety through the procedure estab- lishea by House Bill 308 and an order is is- .sued directing then certificate of title tombe transferred to the Department of Public Safety and the Department, pursuant to~th.at order makes due application and receives the cer 4 I- ficate of title, can the Department then con- sider this vehicle as lawful State property for the,purpose of the expenditure of States funds for its operation ana maintenance?" The provision of Article 725d, Vernon's Penal Code, 'providing for the disposal of forfeited automobiles, vehicles, ana aircraft is as follows: “Sec. 8. Sale. All forfeited vessels, vehicles or aircraft shall be sold at a public. auction under~the direction of the County Shes- iff after notice ~of sale as provided bye law for Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., page 2 (S-211) other sheriff’s sales. The proceeds of such sale shall be delivered to the District Clerk and shall be disposed of as follows: ,“(l> To the bona fide lien holder, mort- gagee or conditional vendor to the extent of his interest; “(2) The balance if any, after deduc- tion of all storage ancl court costs, shall be forwarded by the District Clerk to the State Treasury for deposit in the general revenue fund.” The question involved is whether this section of Article 725d means that there is to be a sale of the for- feited vehicle, vessel or aircraft in every case, or whether the ~section is merely descriptive of the procedure to be followed where there ‘are lienholders and a sale is had under the statute. In reaching a construction of the section involved, it should be pointed out that the word ‘Ishall” , as used in statutes end contracts is generally’ mandatory end imperative. Black’s Law DicCionary (4th Ed. 1 9!m lThe section ‘above quoted concerning sale of for- feited vehicles is the only section in the statute involv- ing a sale or other disposition of the property, and states unequivocally that the forfeited vehicle “shall be s0ialJ. It then proceeds to prescribe the method of sale, and the conclusion is inescapable that the statute com- mands a sale in any event, and any other use of the vehicle is not authorized by the statute. Thus the Department of Public Safety would not be authorized to retain the for- feited vehicle, vessel or aircraft for its own use, nor could it be considered lawful State property for the pur- pose of expenditures of State funds for its operation and maintenance. This construction of the statutory provision is further substantiated by the legislative history of Article 72% as House Bill 308, 54th Legislature, 1955. The bill, as originally introduced, reads as follows: “Sec. 14a. 18. . . “(2) . . . If upon the trial of such suit it is found that such vehicle was used for the transportation of narcotic drugs in violation Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., .page 3 (S-211) of this act then the court trying-said cause shall render judgment forfeiting said prop- erty to the State of Texas end ordering the same disposed of as provided,for by subseo- tion (4) of this section, or if in the opin- ion of the Director of the Department of Public Safety, such property is needed for the use of the department then the same shall be retained and so used until such time as such property is sold by the Department as provided herein." In the committee report on this bill it was recom- mended that the bill do pass, but that it be .not printed, and that a~substituted bill presented by the committee be printed. The'substitutea bill was eventually passed~~and is now Article 725d,~ from which the above provision-was taken. The intention of the Leg~islature as indicated by the above action is clearly shown. It was pre~sented a bill allowing the Department of Public Safety to keep the for- feited vehicle for its own use but instead the Legislature substituted a bill which prov1Ae.e that the vehicle be sold. Thus the intent of the Legislature wasthat the Department of Public Safety.not be allowed by the present Article to retain a forfeited vehicle, vessel, or aircraft for its own use. Therefore, under this article. all property for- feited to the State must be sold in the manner indicated, and retention of the vehicle by the Departmentof Public Safety or expenditure of State funds in its care and main- tenance is without statutory authority. As to the portion of the question ,presented which deals with the certificate of title to the forfeited vehi- cle, vessel or aircraft, Section 9 of particle 725dprovides: 8fSec. 9. The State Highway Department is hereby directed to issue a certificate of~title,-'l to any oerson, purchw a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft under the provisions of this act, when. said certific,ate of title is required under the laws of this State." (Emphasis added.) Section 35.of the Certificate of Title, Act, Arti- cle 1436-1, V.P.C., provides: Honorable Homer Garrisonj Jr:: page 4 (S-211) Whenever the ownership of a motor vehicle registered or licensed within this State is transferred by operation of law, as upon . . . judicial sale, or any other involuntary dives- titure of ownership, the Department shall issue a new certificate of title upon being provided with certified copy of . . . bill of sale from the officer maklng the judicial,sa3.e. . . .'I There is no provision for a transfer of title of the forfeited vehicle in either the article here under construction or the Certificate of Title Act except to the purchaser at the'sale prescribed in Section 8 of Article 72%. Therefore, there is no statutory authorization for a transfer of the title to the forfeited vehicle, vessel, or aircraft to the Department of Public Safety pending the sale of the vehicle prescribed in Section 8 of Article 72,sd either in the other provisions of this article, or in the 6ertificate of Title Act. SUMMARY Article 725cI, V.P.C., does not allow the Department of Public Safety to keep and use or to expend State funds for the maintenance o1 , vehicles, vessels or aircraft forfeited under that article, but provides~ that such forfeited vehicle, vessel, or aircraft shall be sold ac- cording to the statute. Further, Article 725d does not authorize transfer.of the title to such vehicle, vessel, or aircraft to ~the Department of Public Safety .pending the sale of such vehi- cle, vessel, or aircraft under Section 9 of such article. .APPROVED: Very truly yours, J. Fred Jones JOEINBRNSRRPPWD State Affairs Division Attorney General W. V. Geppert Reviewer J. C. Davis, Jr. Reviewer Davis Grant First Assistant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General