Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

AUSTIN. TEXAS wovember 5, 1949 , Boll. Gene Ii. Hlxson opinion Bo. v-944. Couuty Attornef Lipacomb County Be: The authority or the Biggina, Texer ~trwtees of an iude- pendeut aohool dls- triot to sell unused school houses of dor- mant aohool diatrlota tQllowing their OOP- Deer Hr. Mixson: solid&ion. We refer to your mueat presenting, in aub- stance, the followlng data end question: !The Llpaocmb County School Board, aot- In& under Artlole VIII of Senate Bill 116 filat Legislature, (codified as Art.2922-lb, In 8ernon1s Civil Statutes) by order oonaol- idated CommonSohool Districts Won. 8, 9, 11 and a part of 6, all being dormant aohool dia- trlots, with the Higgins Independent~Mhool~ Biatriot In such county. .Electioda h&we been held wherein bonded indebtedness has ~%een aa- sumed and provialon for levying a naintenanoe tax has been made. Located in the new diatrlot are three abandoned aohool howea whioh were used, at one time, by the dormant OommonSohool Dia- trlots. Sohobl has not been held in them for many years. They are standing in disuse, un- repaired, end are rapidly deteriorat$ng. Ii sold, they will probably bring $200 to $400 a piece. Question: may the Board of Trustees of' Hlggina Independent School Diatpict sell these abandoned sohool houses and invest the pro- ceeds in more oonvenlent and desirable school property? If 80, must the consent of State Department of Education be obtained? We awume ior purpo8ea of th%.s 'opinion that the , Hon. Gene R. Mlxaon, page 2 (V-944) buildings in question were aoqulred or oonatruoted and maintained with public money; that they are owned and held in trust for aohool purposes. Artiole VIII of Senate Bill 116, dots slat Legislature, provides in pert as follows: ” the Board of Trustees for the dis- tkit’wlth which such dormant school dla- trlot is consolidated shall continue to serve, and be, the Board of Trustees for the new dlatrlot. In each auoh oaae, the oonsmdation order of the County Board of Trustees shall define by legal bouudary deaoription the territory of the new dLs- triot ga so enlarged and extendedTnd said order, including the description of the dis- triot, shall be recorded in the minutes of the County Board of Trustees and otherwise as provided by law. ~Electlons shall be held in such consolidated districts for the aa- suisption of outstanding bonda, if any, for the levying of taxes therefor, and ‘for the levying of a local maintenance tax; said elections to be ordered and held as now pro- vided by laws” (Bmphasis added). Temple I IS .D. v. Proctor, $7 S.W.2d 1047 (Tex. Civ.App.1936, error ref.) holds that Artlole 2780 is ap- plioable to all types of independent aahool dlatrlcta, whether in incorporated cities or not. Artiole 2780, Vernon’s Clvll Statutes, provides: ‘Said trustees shall adopt such rules, regulations and by-laws as they may deem pro,? per, and the public free schools of awh inA. dependent aohool district shall be under ‘their obntrol; and they shall have the exclusive power to manage and govern said sohoola, end all rights and titles to property for school purposes heretofore vested in the mayor, city oounoila, or school trustees by Articles 3995, 4013 and 4032, Revised Statutes of 1895, or other statutes, general end speolal, eroept such cities as era exempted by this title, shall be vested in said board of trustees and their successors in offioe, and their olatia Eon. Gene H. Hlxaon, page 3 (V-944) shall apply to any action or suit which may arLae to whloh said board Is a party.” Under the express provisions of Artiole VIII of Senate Bill 11.6, a new district was created when the county board by its order consolidated the dormant dia- triots to the Higgins Independent Sohool District. The truateea of former Higgins diStriQt ars now the trua- Ftieitof the eularged new Higgins Independent School Dla- The former common school dtatridta, defined as dormant in Article VIII, by reason of their consollda- tion with the Hlgglna district, have ceased to exist. State v. Cadeohead, 129 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Cfv.App.1939, error ref.). Thus, the school properties, title to whloh prior to the consolidation was veated in the boards of trustees of the dormant common school dlatrlota, is now vested in the Board of Trustees of the Higgins Indepen- dent school Diatriot and their successors in office by reason of the consolidation end in accordance with the provisions of Article 2780, V.C.S., Love v. City of Dal- &, 120 Tex.251, 40 S.W.2d 20, at p. 26 (1931). Houston v. Gonaalea I.S.D., 229 3.W. 467, (Comm.App.192~); Len- der v. Victoria Count 131 S.U. 821, (Tex.Clv.App.rViO); T J 946 Schok, Sec.79; A.G.Oplnions Ros. O- 54e~&?:7265: With respect to the authority of the board of trustees of an independent school district to sell school property of the distrikt we quote from Article 2773: "Any houses or lands held in trust by any city or town for public free school pur- poses may be sold for the purpose of invest- ing In more convenient and desirable school property, with the consent of the State Board, Fr Frmbozs of school trustees of such city in such case, the president of the schiol b;ard shall execute his deed to the purchaser for the ssme, reciting the resolution of the State Board giving consent thereto and the resolution of the board of trustees auth- orlalng such sale.” Previous Attorney Genersl opinions O-415 and O-1570 hold thet the prooedure to be followed by boards of trustees of independent districta ln selling abandon- ed school buildings and grounds is that provided in Art- icle 2773, V.C.S. R.B.Spencer & Co. v. Brown, 198 S.W. 1179, (Tex.Civ.App.1917, error ref.). Oplnlon O-1570 Eon. Gene Ii. Mixaon, psge 4 (V-944) further holds that independent school districta msy dis- pose of property no longer needed for aahool purpoaea, only if it is necessary to do so to acquire other proper- ty whLoh is more suitable; that such property may not be sold for the purpose of putting tbe’:prooeeda in the looal maintenance fund of the district. With the foregoing in mind, it is our opinion that the Board of Trustees of the Higgins Independent School District may dispose of the abandoned buildlags in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 2773. This law requires that the board of trustees meet and sdopt a resolution evidenolng their decision to sell the buildings. Then the cowent resolution of the State Board of Education must be aeoured, and finally the prealdent of the Hlggka Board of Trustees must execute the deed to the purchaser. ‘Fhe two resolutions should recite tM purpose of the sale, and the deed should refer to both ‘5 reaolutiow . SUMMARY Abandoned ,achool buildtinge in dorraant districts oowolidsted with an independent school district under Article VIII of Senate Bill 116, Acts of the 5Xst Legislature, may be sold by ,the board of trustees of the new- ly created school dietriot In aooordanoe with the provisions of Article 2773, ~V.C.8. hart. 2780, v.c.s.; Love v City of Dalli%, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d. 20’ Eowtod v.‘.(ion%a~6k I.S.D., 229 S.W.467; Land& v. Viot’otiU Coiantjr, 13 3 .W. 821; R.B.Spencer & Co. v’. BYown, 198 i.W. 1179; A.G.Opinlow Hos .0413, 0-l>m, O-5354, o-7265. Yours very truly, APPROVED ATTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS James E. Ferguaon Aaalatant &-7pW JEF:CRO:bh:mv Cheater IE. Olliaon Aaal8tant