THEATTOECNEY GENERAL I 

TEXAS 

Honorable Jesse James 

State Treasurer 

Capitol Station 

Aus tin, Texas 

Opinion No. c-337 

Re: Whether certain funds 

received by the Treasurer 

may now be deposited to 

the General Revenue Fund 

or whether recent amendments to the l&cheat 

Laws require further 

court action to escheat 

Dear Mr. James : these funds. 

You have requested an opinion of this office involving the 

following question: 

Whether certain funds received by the Treasurer 

may now be deposited to the General Revenue Fund 

or whether recent amendments to the Escheat Laws 

require further court action to escheat these funds. 

Your letter ,of October 7, 1964, reads as follows: 

“Dursuant to provisions of Order of the Court In 

Causa No. 5461 109th Dlstrlct Court of Winkler County, 

Texas styled .&ate of Texas vs J. A. Drane et al 

the State Treasurer received $1~,790.00 on S&ember’ 

28, 1959. Also, pursuant to Order of the Court, 

Cause Ho. 4562, In the District Court of Childress 

County, Texas covering probate matters of the g&ate 

of Frank Kloskey the sum of $15;957.35 was recelved 

on January 28, 1460. 

“These sums have been held in suspense for the 

purpose of facilitating payment of any claima that 

might be made against the funds. No claims have been 

made to date. 

“By official opinion please advise whether these 

funds may now be deposited to the oeneral Revenue 

Fund or whether recent amendments to the l&cheat 

La;asr$quire further court action to escheat these 

-1601- 
..-_ _ 

Honorable Jesse James, page 2 (C-337) 

Judgments In the above styled cases under consideration 

entered pursuant to then existing substantive and procedural 

were 

escheat statutes of the State of Texas prior to enactment of 

Article 3272a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. If, taken as a whole 

and construed according to well-known rulea a judgment is 

unambiguous, no room is left for interpreta$ion. Magnolia 

Petroleum Co. v . Caawell 1 s.w.2a 597 (,comm.App 1928). All 

property and subject matter of these actions es&ated to and 

vested in the State of Texas In accordance with applicable 

escheat statutes. 

Section 14 of Article 3272a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, provides : 

“The provisions of this Article 3272a are In 

addition and supplementary to and shall not be 

construed to repeal, alter, change, or amend any 

of the provisions of Articles 3273 to 3289, Inclusive, 

Title 53, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, 

which provide for the escheat of estates of decedents.” 

Section 14 of Article 3272a specifically provides that no 

changes were effected in Article 3273 through 3289, Vernon’s Civil 

Statutes which prescribe administrative procedures for substantive 

escheat faws enacted prior to Article 3272a. Deposit of monies 

received in escheat proceedings under substantive statutes enacted 

prior to Article 3272a is set forth in Article 3282 and as provided 

by Article 3272a, remains unchanged. 

Article 3282 provides: 

“If the property recovered be personal property, 

a writ shall Issue to the sheriff commanding Nm to 

seize such property and he shall dispose of the same 

by public auction in the manner QPOVided by law for 

the sale of personal property under execution 

the proceeds of such sale less the costs of the 

and pay 

court, Into the State Treasury .I’ 

Roney escheated under the judgments in question entered 

during January of 1959 and January of 1960 should be deposited 

“Into the State Treasury” by placing said property In the General 

Revenue Fund In accordance with procedures existing prior to 

passage of Article 32720. Further court action Is unnecessary to 

deposit this cscheated money with the State of Texas. 

-1602- 
Honorable Jesse James, page 3 (C-337) 

Funds eecheated pursuant to judgments entered under 

statutes enacted prior to passage of Article 3272a 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, may now be deposited to the 

General Revenue Fund, as no further court action is 

necessary. 

Very truly youra, 

WA@3ONRR CARR 

Attorney General 

BY 

Qoraon Houser 

Assistant 

QH:llll 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMKITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

W. 0. Shultz 

John Reeves 

John Fainter 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY QENERAL 

By: Roger Tyler 

-1603-