July 30, 1975 

The Honorable Jack K. Williams 

President 

Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 77843 

Opinion No. H- 655 

Re: Whether ,a state university 

can erect a building on land 

subject to a possibility of reverter. 

Dear Dr.. Williams: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the authority of the Texas 

A&M University System to erect a building on land subject to a possibility of 

reverter. The land involved in your request was deeded to the University 

from the United States of America on November 21, 1974. The deed contains 

four conditions subsequent which in essence are as follows: 

1. The property will be used for educational purposes 

in accordance with the plan set out in the application. 

2. The grantee can sell, lease, encumber and otherwise 

dispose of the property only as authorized in writing by the 

grantor. 

3. Grantee must file annual reports aa to the operation 

and maintenance of the property. 

4. Grantee will comply with all civil rights statutes and 

regulations pertaining to discrimination on grounds of race, 

color or national origin for so long as the property is used 

for a purpose for which federal financial aasiatance is 

provided. 

The breach of any of the above conditions can result in the reversion of 

the property to the grantor at the grantor’s option. The first three conditions 

expire after thirty years but no expiration date was set for the fourth condition 

although the fourth condition is inoperable if the facilities located on the land 

involved receive no federal financial assistance. 

p* 2877 
The Honorable Jack K. Williams - page 2 

Abrogation of t,hc: first three primary conditions may br obtained by 

certain payments to be made by grantee which alrlount to the current lair 

market value of the land as of the date of abrogation less a 3 l/3% credit 

for each year the grantee has complied with the conditions. 

Section 85. 23(a) of the Education Code, which is applicable to the 

Texas A&M University System, provides that the University’s Board of 

Directors: 

. . . may contract with persons, firms, or corporations 

for the purchase, acquisition, or construction of permanent 

improvements on or conveniently located with reference to 

the campus of any institution of the system; and may purchasc~, 

sell, or lease lands and other appurtenances for the construction 

of the permanent improvements. However, no liability shall 

be incurred by the State of Texas under this subsection. 

There are no express restrictions on the form of contract to be utili?.ed 

in the purchase of lands for the erection of permanent improvements. 

The Board is expressly authorized to erect buildings on leased land. 

Thus, in our opinion,this section would in this case permit permanent improvements to be erected on land owned subject to a possibility of reverter, for 

while a lease will usually contain a termination date, the land involved in your 

request will remain the property of the University so long as the conditions 

subsequent are not breached. Thus, the University may retain title to this 

property indefinitely. Accordingly, in our opinion, the Texas A&M Universiiy 

System is statutorily authorized to erect permanent improvements on this land. 

We do not consider the effect, if any, of Senate Bill 706, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., 

which relates to construction of physical plants at institutions of higher learn@ 

in the State of Texas. 

In addition, we are aware of no constitutional inhibitions to the erection 

of such permanent improvements. In the similar context of improvements on 

leased land, we have hrld that article 3, sec,tion 51 of t.he Texas Constitution 

and its associated provisions would not be violated if the expenditure: 

p. 2878 
is for il propc’r public purpose and if the consideration 

or Ix:lll%tit to (.he public is adequai.cb. Attorney General 

Opinion I.(-403 (1974). 

Having determined this test to be satisfied we have upheld expenditures for 

improvements on leased land. Attorney General Opinions H-403 (1974), H-257 

(1974). Since the pu.blic purpose and beneift are evident in the instant case, and 

since there is less possibility of dkestiture in this case than in those involved in 

our prior opinions, we believe the proposed expenditures wculd be clearly 

constitutiona\. 

SUMMARY 

The ‘Texas A&M University System may erect permanent 

improvcmrnts on certain land owned by the System subject 

to a possibility of revcrter. 

Very truly yours, 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. RO6F;lIT HEATH, Chai~rrnan 

Opinion Cornn~littee