OFTEXAS
AUS~N.TEXAS
4uguat22r19b9
Hon. Haxwll WOlOP oplniollHo. v490
Distriot rt$orlay
53rdJpdioial Diatiot Ber Validity olitq aalo fop
Hew Boatoo, Totar 1.88 than the judgment
and ralated qtuatlona.
Deer sir:
YOU 0pini0tinqua8t 18, iti pd, 88 r0ii0~:
"In 195; I, aa iJount[httornq + Baa
00unty,Tu48, filed a lul 111the irkriot
Court of Bow&q ComrtJ, Tuaa, to foraobae a
t&x lieu agaiuat 435 aoraa of'lmd inBew%o
cotmty. m0 pi~inttfr8.in tu QUA mm dtm
oi.TexaaJ tko oomaty, 9-0~ aohool dbtz$ot,
and tka re& bald dlatrlot, ad j-t wan
nd0ver.dfor tha @K¶unt
or the tuea, penal-
tiesladlntesaatduetha +pemtlntqlru
anita for a tot81 or $26OO*c!O.!Phoroaf$o~,
and
eat bidder. !Chehi&oat bid mad@ for the lard
rag ~1800.00, end the 8heriff
to the pwhaaor oonYoyl?q
oonaidiation or.$1800.00;
elbaa tham the amount 61 th;sjti&mW‘t 2'00oVOl'Od.
Tke pu2uma.r lnediotely~n8t~lnto pMebaaloh
of the prom and md6 rUmable ~W88-ta
therein, and ha8 alnoe auoh tl8. had obmtinu-
oua poraoaaion. The prior uma* aho wem de-
‘~ondafa in the tax au&t; did not redoa tko
property ad 8he period for mduptlon haa,~e-
pimd . The 8hb~iff paid the ~l~.O@i~to the
orrloo or the Matrlet Olerrk*a al@ the fax Ool-
leotor refused to eooept the sama fFa the Die:-
trlot Clerk end the Olerk hu held arid n-
alace 1945. mo faot that the propmty was
sold for leaa than the ao& of We B8U8
wan not reported to me at the tlmb, a* I Ihad
no knowledge of it fop approxlmateljalwar af-
ter the aale was msde, and w that tire th@
, .
Hon. Maxwell Weloh, Page 2 W-sso)
purahaaer had oompleted valuable improve-
manta on the premiaea.
"I would like to km if the sale M-
der the olroumateneeaabove outlined panned
the title to the purohaaer, and If no, hov
should the Tax Colleotor aoooant for the
defioienoy.:I wotild.il@ollka to know ~hov
to arrive titan appotilonlnent0r the mount
reoelvod am 3z&waen the r0t3rtsxbg amita
who were~lalntiffa In the suit. In other
vorda, what do we do IIOW?~
$rovldear
Seotlon 5 of Art1010 73hSb. V,Ct.S.,
"Upon the trial of maid oauae the Court
shall hearevldeno6 upon the roaaona~la fair
value of the property, and ah911 lnoorporrte
in its judgment a finding of the raaaonable
fair valpe thereof, in bulk or in paroela,
either or both, es the Cow& miltdeem proper,
whioh reaaonabl6 falr.valasa0 found w the
O~tla her8aftar aomatlmaaaiqlod 'clajUd@
val&e,' rhioh :‘adjradged~alue~'ahallbo the
'value~88 of the date of the trlal'and'ah811
not neaeaaaril~be.tho ralae at the tire the
aaaeuaam~ of the taxer was 8adei pzorlded,
%hat the burden 0r w00r ahall be on $M
or
orrur, owner8 :of'auoh
~prop8i-t~emtab-
'ln~
.liahin&the tfair rartil,or adjudged tally
am prodded in thta aeotlon.m~
sootion 8 0r Art1010 nkb, v.o.8.. raada in
part am r0iiove;
"Ho propertymold for tuoa under dooreo
in auah ault ahall be mold to the owner of
said property, direotly or.lndlreotlj,or to
anyone hating ln\lntoreat thmein, or to aaj
party other than a taxing unit wZllohla a
parti to tho ault, for loam than the amount
of tho adjudged value afo~aald of arid prop-
erty or the aggrsgato CppOuntof the judgments
againat tho property In arid suit, whlohover
la lower, . . .
You~falled to advias 1111
am to whetherthe Court
hoard ovideno0 apcm tho roaaoimblofairraluo 0r tho prop-
I .
Hon. Yexvell Welch, Page 3 (v-890 1
arty and lm3orporatai3 in the judgmant~a finding 0r tho
reaaonablo fair value thoroof. Ii tho Oourt ocmplled
with the prorLslons of said Liootlon5 aad the nadjudgod
value" is in the amount of $1800.00 or loam, then the
sale ~paaaodtitle to the pwheaor. In that ovont, if
the tm aaaoaaor-o&.ootor rofuaoa to woa3Qt tho #MOO
lean the oourt aoata, ho oould k required to aqospt
such amowt qxd ia##uejwope# redWQtiion *aue%pta by a
mandamus ault.
The Oourt in a tax roreuloauremolt la not
requ&md to owply with the provlaloua of said motion
5 aa to "adjudgedvalue' unlearnreqn4ated by the tax-
ayar. Barson v. Oltr of Bllrsi-ton,138 S.W.2d 921
PTox. Civ. App., 1940, error dlam~.judge. oo~.)
dsaumiPy that an "edjpdgod value" wee not
r0uadand inoorp8Slad la the judgment,oc that +i,an
"adjudgedvalw wan fouad and the amount Mimeor ox-
ooodml the mum of #1800.00, you aro advlaed that tho
aelo wad void and t&a deed did nob paaa tit10 ,totho
QUl’OhWOF. Ia m* evetS& a*hnnlng Wet the jwlgmemt
la valid, you *I$!# h8v6 an ord*r of ma&e faawd Sti
Qr00ead ',!%a
geli l$M pr&&y Mum, am provldod
bp.+&&h mm;: r,c.q.
lo. O-738, whloh holda that.8 bid by a prlvato pemon
for leas than tho amount of the jud nt la void. See
D.aadlaorv. Stats, 140 Tax. 252, 1r 3.W.26 914 (1942).
Uhoro the edjudgod value la loam than tho
clplount
of the jud$mont, and tho Q!xrohaaerblda an
amouut at leant equal to the adjudged value and 1088
than tho full 88ouBt of the jrdlmont, th@ proaoeda
shell bo dlatrlbutad to all taxlug unit8 whloh are
pertLea to tho suit rhloh by the judgment in maid suit
found to have tax 1100s against.awh QrOQ-
have beetsi
arty, pro rata and in proportionto tho emoanta o?
lion.Maxwell Welch, Page 4 (v-890)
their respeotlvetax lleds as eatabllahod~lnmaid
judgment as provided in Se&ion 8 of Artlole 734%
A sale 0r Ql'OQ0l'ty
for taxes to anyQIurty
other than a texlng unit whloh is a party to the
suit, ~forless than the amount of the adjudged
value (If any) of said property, or the eggm-
gate amount of the judgments against the Qrop-
ertv. whiahever Is lover. Is void. and the doed
passes no title to the purohaser.-8; c).Opinion
BO. o-738. See Danolmr v. State, 140 Tex. 252,
166 S.W.26 914 (f942).
Where the adjudgedveluo ia loam than the
amount or the judgment, and the puroheaer bids
an amormt et loeat equal to the adjud ed valua
end leas ,thenthe ra amount 0r tho !I
udgmont,
the proaeedashall be diatrlbutodto all taxing'
unlta whloh nre partleatotho aultuhlchby
the judgment in said ault have ken found to
have tar llelrsagainst auoh property,Qro.rrt8
and in proportion to tho amoun$aof tholz~~apeo-
tlvo tax liens aa o~tabllahodin aald wont
es providedIn SOotion8'd Art101073.j33.
mura vary truly,
.
BY
Aaalatant