Ronorabl,e George,D.Mlnick County Attorney
w00a County Quitman, Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionNo. O-6173 Ret Authority of sheriff to sell unredeemed land acquired~bythe State at a tax sale when the original
owner pays all taxes,penalties and interestafter the expiration of the period of redemption.

From youropinion request of October 19, 1944,and
a letter from MF. 0. C. Parker, attorney for the Sells Petroleum Inc., we summarize the following~facts:

Prior to 1931, one Ellis owned and occupied 45 acres of land inyour county. In.February, 1931, judgmentwas entered In a tax suit for all taxes delinquent on this land since 1919,and on March 31, 1931, execution issuedupon this judgment and was executedby the sheriff,who. for failure of other bidders,bid the land In for the State,and executed his deed conveying the land to the State. For purposes of this opinion,we asi
sume that all of the proceedings involved in this auitand sale were regulax and that there are no defects at any stage of these proceedings.
Although this land was not redeemed during the period of redemption, the,sheriffhas not yet made
a second sale of the land, and no actionhas been taken to alienate to a third person whatever title .theState holds by virtue of Its tax deed. From the time of the sale to the present,Ellis has continued to occupy the land.

At certain i,ndeterm?.nate times since the expiration of~theperiod of redempti.on--lncludFng, apparently, tlmesin 1937 and 1943:- certainpayments have been madetithe tax col-lion.QeorgeD. Minick, page 2 (O-6173)

lect6r?d+elative to this land and redemption certlflcateshave been Issued therefor. Mr. Parker contends that these payments cover all taxes,penaltlea, Interestand coats due on this land. You express doubt aa to whether the costshave been paid, but state that all taxes, except for the current assessment,have been paid.

Under the terms ofArticle 7328, V.A.C.S., your sheriffpossessed the power to make a second sale of this land at public outcry to the highest bidder at any time after the expiration of the redemptionperiod. This power he has not yet excroised. If you are correct in your belief that the costs have not been paid, and thus that all of the taxes, penalties, Interestand costs due on this landhave not been paid, it Is our opinion that the landhas not been redeemed and that it may now be soldby the sheriff In conformancewith the applicableprovisions ofArticle 7328.

On the ot,her

hand, if Mr. Parker Is correct in his belief that all of these itemshave been paid, with suchpayments being made subsequent to the expiration of the redemption period, the question arises as to whether the original
ownermay redeem from the State only during the redemptqon period or whetherhe may redeem by payment at any time while title to the land remains in the State.

In conneotionwith this question, it la to be remembered that our courts have adopted rules of constructionwhereby tax statutesare oonstrued strictlyInsofar as they affect the rights and privileges of the taxing authority and liberally insofar as they affeotthe rights and privileges of a taxpayer. Texas UnemploymentCompensationCommission, et al. v. Bass, 151 S.W. (2d)567. Moreover, the statutes relating to the foreclosureand sale of land for delinquent taxes have uniformly been held to be for the purpose of forcing collection of the taxes rather than for the purpose of enabling the State to obtain a profit upon the sale of such land. The law abhors forfeituresand favors redemption. Black on Tax Titles (2ndEd.) p 348. Thus, as was saidby theCourt of Civil ;Pgyals of Texaa in the case of League v. State, 56 S.W. II

. . .fthas always been the policy of the state to exten; the time for redemption of lands,and never to acquire them for itself."

An apt illustrationof these principles is to be found in the case of Federal Crude Oil Co. v.Yount-Lee Oil co., et al., 52 S.W. (2d)56. In this case, although the franchise tax statutesprovide only that when the right toRon. George D. Minick, page 3 (O-6173)

do busFne,ss

of a corporationhas been forfeited f,ornon-payment of franchise taxes, the taxpayermay revlveUsuch rightby paying the taxes, Interestand penalties within sixmonths from the date of such forfeiture, the Supreme Court held that the six months period is in no way a limitationand that a revivalmay also be effected by making the properpayment after the expiration of the statutory period, In so holding, the court saLa:
“This statute is purely a revenue measure. Under It large sums are collected for the support of the state government. Statutes of this nature are always liberally construed so as to effectuate the chief object and purpose of thelr enactment. In making provision for the colleotion of public revenue, ordinarily time is not of the essence of the thing sought to be accomplished.

. .
“No sound reason can be advancedwhy the Legislature should desire to prevent a oorporatlon from reviving its right to do businessby paying its delinquent tax with accumulatedpenalties after the time fixed in the statute if at the time payment is made the state has not availed itself of its right to bring a suit against said corporation for the purpose of forfeiting its charter. If corporations
are permitted to pay their delinquent franchise taxes, with acoumulatedpenalties,at any time and thereby obtain a revival of their right to do business, and to use the courts, the chief object and purpose of the statute to obtain the payment of such taxes willbe more readily acoompllshed.”

In our opinion, the prlnclples and rules of oonstruction above set forth oontrol the instant question and establish the right of the taxpayer to,redeemhis land uponmaking the ps;;iilents

requiredby law, regardlessof whether suchpayments are made before oraWkr the expiration of the redemption period. The statutesprescribinga two year redemptionperiod nowhere provide that redemptionmay not be effecte.d after ,tie expiration of suchperiod. on the contrary, these statutes merely provide--in the language ofArticle 7340--that the
owner “shallhave the right at any time within two years from the date of sale” to redeem the land. In our opinion, this establishment of a statedperiod was not for the purpose of setting a date beyond which redemption may not be had. Rather,
we feel, this period was established to insure the original
owner thathe posaessesan absolute right of redem@tionduring such period and that during suchperiod the State will notHon. George D. Minick, page 4 (O-6173)

interferewith such right by selling the land to a third person. Stated differently,these statutes do not out off the right of the original owner to redeemafter the expiration of the redemptionperiod; rather theymerely insure the original
owner that his right of redemptionmay not be jeopardized during suchperiod.

Consequently, ifMr. Parker is correct in his contentionand if properpayment of all taxes, costs, interest and penaltieshas been made, you are respectfullyadvised that the land in question has been redeemed and that the sheriffdoes not now possess the power to sell such land. In further supportof this conclusionwe call your attention to the holding and authorities in our OpinionNo. O-423, a copy of which opinion Is enclosedherewith.

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, we are

APPROVED NOV. 4, 1944 Very truly yours /s/Carlos C. Ashley FIRST ASSISTAHTATTORNEY GENERAL RLTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

THIS OPINION CONSIDERED AND APPROVED IN LIMITED CONFERENCE
RDM:ff-dhs Encl. By /s/R. Dean Moorhead R. Dean Moorhead

Assistant