Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

c . Hon. Ray Winder County Attorney Cooke County Gainesville, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. o-7177 Re: Redemption by the original own- ers of land sold at foreclosure tax sales. We have your request for an opinion reading as follows: "Certain real estate in Cooke County has been recently sold at tax sale to private purchasers, and some of the original owners of such lands desire to redeem same. "The suits were filed by an attorney under con- tract with the-county of Cooke as well-as the City of Gainesville, covering State, County, City, and School taxes, the tax liens were duly foreclosed, and the property sold at public sale at the Court House door as provided by statute. "Information Is desired as to the amount required to be Daid by the original owners in order to redeem their land from tax sale? "Articles 7272 to 7283, R.C.S., provides for the sale of real estate, in certain cases, by the County Tax Collector. Said Article 7283, R.C.S., provides for redemption within the first year after sale by payment of the amount of money paid by the purchaser of the land plus 10%; 20% during th,esecond year. It is believed that this has nothing to do with fore- closure sales through the court. "Articles 7284-a and b, R.C.S. (Acts 1927) pro- vide for redemption from State, County and District tax sales by payment of double the amount paid by the purchaser at such sale. "Article 7345-b, section 12, R.C.S. (Acts 19X7- 1939), provides for redemption by the owner within the Hon. Ray Winder - page 2 o-7177 first year of the redemption period, upon payment c? the amount paid for the property by the purchaser ?t the sale, plus 25% thereof, or withj~nthe last year 0:' the redemption period upon payment of amount paid f'c:r the property plus 50% thereof. Prov!sl.onis also rn~de for redemptlon thru the tax col!.ector:?s set forth 1.:: Articles 7284 and 7285, R.C.S. "It isbelieved by the writer th:?t hrticle 7:1!5-b, se&Ion 12, R.C.S., is the applicable law with rei'erence to redemption by the original owners of land sold et fore- closure tax sales, but some of the purchasers et such sales are demanding double the amount ;re!dby them for the property, as specified in Articles '(3c?h-a n?r'5, R.C.S. It appears to the writer that Article 7345-b and !rticles 7284-a and b cover exactly the same matter and ore incon- sistent, and that therefore Article 734j-b cont?*::lr: be- cause it is the later law. "Information is further desired as to rneth+ ?f re- demption where the~owner redeems directl:-fro:;:the 'par- chaser at the sale; Articles 7284, 7284-e end :I,and 7345-b) section 12, R.C.S., provide for the r~:3e::i:~ti~n of property sold at tax sale and fix the TIOU~? to be paid to the purchasers at tax sale, but th'sre 3rticl.es fall to Provide how such redemptions shall bz ~:!,~:ur- chaser at tax sale to the original owner would probably be sufficient. But it seems some defi.ni.te rule could be followed in this matter." You state: "It is believed by the writer that Artclc 7345-b, sectlon 12 R.C.S., is the applicable law w'.threference to redemption by the original ownerc of Tan? sold at foreclosure tax sales, but some of the purc'>?rersat such sales are demanding double the amount :::Iid by them for the property, as specified in Articles :??k? and b, R.C.S. It appears~to the writer that Article "?:!j!-5-b and Articles 7284-a and b cover esactlg the zeme matter and are inconsistent, and that therefore Art".cle:34j-b Hon. Ray Winder - page 3 O-7177 controls because it is the later law." You are correct in believing that Article 7345-b controls. The~'Supreme~ Court in passing upon a case with facts 9imilar to those stated in,your request, to wit: ,Xty of El Paso v. Fortl, 181 S.W. 2d, p. 579 said: "We perceive the controlling question for deter- mination to'be whether OP not Article 7345b, Sec. 12, Vernon's Civ. St., prescribes the exclusive method for redeemlng property sold under a judgment of 'ore- closure for taxes in suits brought und,erthe E.oJislons of that article. The Act, Article m, had for its chief purpose the prevention of a multiplicity of suits by providing for the inclusion of all taxing units in one action and adjudicating the claims of . all units in.a suit brought by any one or more of such units. Willacg County Water Control &~Imp. District v. Lewis, Tex. Clv. App., 119 S.W. 2d 159, and Pearsall Independent School District v. Widner, Tex. Civ, App., 136 s.w. 2d 647. * * * "The section with'whlch we are primarily concerned Is Section 12, relating to the question of the right to redeem from such sale. It is as follows: "In all suits heretofore or hereafter filed to collect delinquent taxes against property, judgment in said suit shall provide for issuance of writ of posses- sion within twenty (20) days after the period of redemp- tion shall have expired to the purchaser at foreclosure sale or his assigns; but whenever land is sold under judgment-in such suit for taxes, the owner of such property, or anyone having an interest therein, or their heirs, assigns or legal representatives, may with- in two (2) years from the date of such sale, have the right to redeem said property on the following basis, to-wit: (1) within the first year of the redemption perlod, upon the payment of the amount bid for the property b the purchaser at such sale, including a One ($1.007 Dollar tax deed recording fee and all taxes, penalties, interest and costs thereafter paid thereon, plus twenty-five per cent (25%) of the aggregate total; (2) within the last year of the redemption period, upon the payment of the amount bid for the property by the purchaser at such sale, including a One ($1.00) Dollar tax deed recording fee and all taxes, penalties, interest and costs thereafter paid thereon, plus fifty per cent (50$) of the aggregate total. Ron. Ray Winder - page 4 o-7177 "'In addition to redeeming direct from the purchaser as aforesaid, redemption may also be made upon the basis here- inabove defined, as provided in Articles 7284 and 7285 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas of 1925.' "At the time of the enactment of the Act in question there were in effect various articles of the statutes relat- ing to redemption from tax sales, among them being Article 7340, R.C.S., reading as follows: "'Where lands or lots shall hereafter be sold to the State or to any city or town for taxes under decree of court in any suit or suits brought for the collection of taxes thereon or by a collector of taxes, or otherwise, the owner or any one having an interest in such lands or lots shall have the right at any time within two years from the date of sale to redeem the same upon payment of the amount of taxes for which sale was made, together with all costs and penalties required by law, and also payment of all taxes, interest, pen- alties and costs on or against said land or lots at the time of the redemption.' "It was the view of the Honorable Court of Civil Ap- peals that Article 7340 is a soecial law while Article 7345b is a general law, that under the rule that the enactment of a general law does not ordinarily operate as a repeal of a spe- cial law by implication, Article 7340 was not repealed by Article 7345b and that, therefore, respondent was entitled to redeem her property by paying the amount prescribed In said Article 7340, and was not required to pay the additional amount of penalties prescribed in Article 7345b. We find ourselves unable to agree with this conclusion. "It is not necessary for us to decide in this case whether or not Article 7345b, Section 12, repealed and made wholly inooerative Article 7340 or any other article relating to redemption from tax foreclosures. It might be held in cases where onlv one taxing unlt is a parts and no other taxing unit has a claim for delinouent taxes that such articles are still ineffect, but that they do not operate in a case brought under 7345b, but we do not pass on that question. Article 7345b pre- scribes a method of redemption in all cases brought under that article under which, if one taxing unit bids in the property, it takes same as trustee for the other taxing units in whose favor judgment ran in the foreclosure suit. Until Article 7345b was enacted a suit like the instant one, in which all taxing units became parties, was unauthorized. Prior to its enactment there were various statutes with reference to redemption. For example, these articles may be cited: Articles 1065, 7284a and 7340, Vernon's Civ. St., each being applicable in the character Hon. Ray Winder - Page 5 o-7177 of suit to which it related, Their provisions varied widely. It seems clear to us that when the Legislature enacted 7345b, whereby all taxing units could be joined in one suit and the property bid in by one such suit for the benefit of all; and prescribing the terms upon which same might be redeemed, it intended thatthose terms should governsIn all cases of rzemp- tion in %hat character of suit regardlessof who became the purtihaserat-the sale. The confusion which wouldresult from a contrarg'ho~&ing in a caselYke'2ne "instantone, 'Is dov'lous. To determine the amount to be paid to the variousunits, if possible to do so, when under the statutes above cited differ- ent terms'were prescribed would bring into play some highly involved computations.~ We cannot ascribe to the Legislature the intent to create confusion when its evident purpose was simpliCication and clarity. "But the amount cannot be so determined, for to hold that the various statutes above cited should be applied in de- termining the amount of money required to be paid in order to redeem in a case like the instant one, would create an impos- sible situation. In this case one of the taxing units is a district. Under Article 7284a, in order to redeem as against a district, the owner would be required to pay 'double the'a- mount paid by the purchaser at such sale.' That is the only basis for redemption of land sold under a decree in favor of a district, if Article 7345b, Sec. 12, is not applicable. Hinkson v. Lorenzo Independent School~Distritit,Tex. Civ. App., 109 S.W. 2d 1008. Under Article 7340, the basis is the amount ofdelinquent taxes for which the sale is made. Under Article 7345b, Sec. 8, the bid of a taxing unit may be less than the amount of the taxes found to be owing. While the amount bid irithis case by the City was the total amount owing to all of the taxing units, still it would not be contended that the owner would be required to pay double that amount to redeem from the district alone in addition to the amount required to be paid to the other taxing units under Article 7340. Without a basis of computation applicable to all of the taxing units under the various redemption statutes in existence at the time Article 7345b was enacted those statutes cannot be made to apply in a case like the instant one brought under that article." (Emph. ours) The above fully answers your question as to the amount to be paid the purchaser by the owner under a state of facts related in your request. Your inquiry as to the "method of redemption where~the owner redeems directly from the,purchaser at the tax sale", our answer is that a quit claim deed should be obtained and placed of record. Of course, if the owner and purchaser cannot agree on the amount, the owner can redeem from the tax collector in Ron. Ray Winder - page 6 o-7177 the manner provided by Arts. 7284 and 7285 and place the re- ceipt issued to him of record. If the owner and purchaser agree on the amount but the owner refuses to give the quit claim deed or a recordable receipt, the owner can file suit in Trespass to Try Title and pay as a tender the amount due the purchaser Fnto the reglstrg of the Court and obtain judgment against the purchaser and obtain a certified copy thereof and record It in the County Clerk's office. We trust that the above answers your questions. Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS By S/SOS. V. Frnka Jos. V. Frnka Assistant JVF:djm:wc APPROVED APR 17, 1946 s/Grover Sellers ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS Apporved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman