. . . . 

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

; 

G~~~~R SELLERS 

,“&mMrr Crnr**L 

. . 

. 

Opinion Ho. O-6635 A’ 

:. 40

LB supplemated 

raquested the 

rcotus1 situatloc*, 

. 

the County OS IIldol,go is the owner ia trttot for the other taxiag waits, is lt possible for the sherlif to correot his retWa in order to m&e it oollfor~ with the true facts and eon- 

~QNLI with his deed? 
.:. 

**l&s 1 

The perthat ~ovlsiona of Article 734sb rri 8~ 

%ec. 9. IT thi property be sold to auy 

taring unit uhloh is a party to the judpent 

uuder decree of Qouz% Ia aald suit, the title 

to said property shell be bid In and hold by 

the taxlag uult purrhaslng sme for the use sad 

benefit of its&X and 8l.l other tsxlng mlto 

vhich are parties to the suit acd whloh hzve 

bcea SdjUdg#d 1~ seld 2u.U t0 have tat lfcns 

8gaiUSt 8UCh .@rOpWty, PI'0 r&A OUd In PPOpOrtlon to the amuat of the tax liens in fsvor of 

said rsspeotlve tt&ug units as astabllsked by 

the $x&mat In said suit, end costs end expeasea shall not be paysble until Betle b suck 

taxiug unit 80 ~purchsasiug so, .a,” 

The questZon hexe to be decided Is whether tho errmeous return ads by the eherlf-f s!!mln# t.kt the State of 

5%x1&8 WCS the ‘purchaser at th.o foreclzisure sale vould lavclldhte the clear vordicti: of the sherlff~a daed thst tho 

purchaser vas the Comty of X.i.dul.g~ Wdcr the ebov? quoted 

provloions of .the statute. 

cl., 

In the .biutri 6f oltii as et al., Pm ~Otlt~OtS8l'~, et 

(Cl% &p.) 23 9.#. (+)a r 6!8, the &?emORt Coilrt Of Clvll 

hpPe&ls stated the rule of lsv lu Texss to be 8s foZloimt 

” 

..,‘~ The* vslIClty of 8 sheriff’8 shle ucdOT execution or order of sale is not dependent 

. up& the rcgulsrlty of his return. The total 

failure to mke ths returu does not affect the 

sale. Willis ,v. Smith, 66 Tex. 31, 17 9.W. ?47. 

Therefore, a defectlvs Peturn could not have 

that .effoct. The failure of the sheriff to exaaute,end dellvctr~e propor and V8lZd deed, If 

In f8Ct his deed vss defeotlve, did UOt destroy 

the purchaoer’r Interest acqufred under the 6816. 

Ulllls v. smith, 8upre. 

tr *IQ Hlggl.~?3 v* Rwdeges (Tex. Civ. App.) 

98 Wt. 350;35?, It w&a 8nS.d: *A valid jUdgmen% execution, end sale are all that is required 

to pas8 title to property sold at oxeoution sale, 
r 

&onorable D. p. HoKee, page 3 

pay&sat or purchase moc~y and facts neoeasary to 

entitle the purchaser to a &oed- being kh?Swn. 

~laix~~ea v. Ileel, 67 Tex. 673, 4 3.~0 31~. .a, 

It has been held that a shsrlff riccy amend his 

deed, oven after’he goods out of office. Flsmming v9 Powell, 3 Tex. ? 5’;’ 3ee .&so, Certer 

Y. ikndy (Texm CiV. Appm 7 351 3.W. ?Tl.” 

he tbove opmon u&a r&arrlrGl in the case of 

ryler Y. Ikndersoa (Cio. A?p.), 163 3.N. (gd) 170 (error rpmeed) a8 r0u0w8i - 

It is said in 18 Tax. Jur. pa 754, Wte re~ulnrity 0r the ~~~~~irr~s return 

te not essential to the validity or a aale under 

executLoa mnd the title of the pumhascr does 

not dapend thereon. l ** In fe3t an e&tic faflure to z&a ‘a return does not affest tha sale.8 

Toe last expreoslo;r of the quotatior? Is based 

upon the hoUi%g ln%rigra v. Eont~omcrg, 9.7X. 

Civ. App., ?? 3.F. 26 -6&i, ia which that co’& 

cited Willis v. Emith, 66 Tex. 31, 17 3.N. rS7." 

. . 

These eases afr¶.rm a long cstablishcd d.wtrine rclating to the purchaser at au execution aale which was ndopted by the’suprens Court in the case of Beady Qr Ha T. Certer 

& Boa., P69 3.W. 1037 (Con. App.). ~. 

: 

t:on 

a As the kbotance o: tltlb bt exeou0% passes upon the pmchaaerla tompllanco 

ulth his bid, the deed of the sheriff 10 pwely 

ml~sterlal, is merely evidence of the right, 

. . . 

Thus it umy be seen that the equitable titla passes 

to the kctual purchaser at the execution nale irrespective of 

the irre&ularity la the sherZff’~s return, or in the doed itself, but the deed lr. simply the lnstruiwnt perfecttng end 

venting the legal title to the poperty so sold 1~ the actual 

purchaser at the sale. 

In %he case Bf Hol~~a, et al;, Y. BuClraar, et al., 

t 67 ~Tex. lQ, 3 S:W. 452, it is held: 

I. 

. 
, 

. xosorae. D. Pa Hobe, pege 4 

40- 

‘5%~ purahasar’s titie at execution sale 

under a valid judgment, the proceedings prior 

to sale being regular, becomes perfect on the 

exeoutlon and delivery of the deed, and cannot 

be af’fected by any Irregularities IR the return 

made of the execution by the sheriff. The recitals In the doed, If In conflfct mith any facts 

stated In tho sheriffs’ return, vi11 control. 8” 

, Raeed upon the asaumptlon that the judgments and . 

exeautions Issued thereon were In due and lepl folm, when 

the County of IiIdalgo purchased at foreclosure sales tho 

various properties In questlori which were GOId and bLd tn c 

by the repreeeotatlve of E!ldelgo County m&r tho provlsIoos 

of Section 9 of &tIcle Q45b, V.A.C.S., l525, aa arznded, 

the County of IIIdal&o acquired title to the lands In question in trust for Itself’, the State of Toxos and all other 

Intervening taxlag units and the sherfff would have Q right 

to socad the defective roturns made thareoa la order to 

.clafify the recorde, although under the holdInga of the 

courts above sat forth, such proceedings would not be eoseutlal to .v&lldatc the title. 

. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORlibN GRNRRG OP TEXA3 

CKR rdb 

-