The Attorney General of Texas 

October 2, 1979 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable Cecil Mackey, President 

Texas Tech University 

P. 0. Box 4641 

Lubbock, Texas 79409 

Dear Mr. Mackey: 

Opinion No. Mw-6 2 

Re: Sale of land by Texas Tech 

University. 

You inform us that real estate belonging to Texas Tech University was 

leased in 1977 to the current tenant under a lease purchase contract with an 

option to purchase. The lease purchase arrangement was advertised in a 

local paper for one week and the bid opening was scheduled for a few days 

later. The property was leased to the highest bidder with the option to 

purchase conditioned upon the passage of legislation authorizing conveyar!ce 

of the property in question by the Chairman of the Board of Regents. The 

sixty-sixth legislature enacted Senate Bill 213 authorizing sale of the 

property “only after advertisement in at least two issues of a newspaper 

published in the county in which ‘the land is located, the first such 

publication to be made at least 30 days in advance of the sale date.” The 

advertisement is to call for sealed bids and provide for sale to the highest 

bidder. You ask whether the Board of Regents must rebid the property 

before selling it or whether it may convey the property to the current lessee 

without advertising the sale. 

The power of the state to dispose of its property is vested in the 

legislature and may be exercised bv agents of the state only under 

legislative authorization. Conley v. Daugh‘iers of the Republic, 156 S.W. 197 

(Tex. 1913); see also Lorino v. Crawford Packing Co., 175 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. 

1943); Attorney General Opinions C-207 (1964); V-320 (1947). Prior to the 

enactment of Senate Bill 213 the regents had certain specific powers with 

respect to the lease or ‘conveyance of University lands, (see Educ. Code 

SS 109.44, 109.45, 109.46, 109.48) but no statute authorized them to sell the 

land in question. The lease-purchase contract recognizes this lack of 

authority, since it conditions the purchase option on the enactment of 

legislation authorizing conveyance of the land for the stated consideration. 

The recently enacted Senate Bill 213 is the only legislative authorization for the sale of this land. Its terms must be strictlv COmDlied with. See 

%&k%%ex. Civ. App. 

404 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1966); Wilson v. County of Calhoun, 489 

- Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.); 

p. 195 
Honorable Cecil Mackey - Page Two (NW-62 1 

Attorney General Opinion C-760 (1966). The Board of Regents must rebid the land and 

otherwise comply with the ~requirements of Senate Bill 213. 

The contingent purchase option granted in the 1977 contract is unenforceable 

because no legislation has been enacted which authorizes sale of the land on the contract 

terms. The Regents had no authority in 1977 to bind the state to dispose of the property in 

accordance with the lease purchase contract. See State v. Ragland Clinic-Hospital, 159 

S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1942). Thus. the enactmentofsenate BIB 213 does not impair the 

obligation of a contract enteredinto by the state. See Tex. Const. art. I, S 16. 

- 

SUMMARY 

The Board of Regents of Texas Tech University must comply with 

the terms of Senate Bill 213 in order to sell the land to which it 

relates. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Susan Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Martha AIlen 

David B. Brooks 

Susan Garrison 

William G Reid 

Bruce Youngblood 

P. 196