ORNEY GENEKAL 

OF EXAS 

Honorable R. F. Robinson 

County Attorney 

Willacy County 

Raymondville, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-6884 

Re: Distribution of proceeds 

of a delinquent tax sale 

among various taxing units. 

We acknowledge receipt of your request for an opinion on the above 

question, said request reading as follows: 

“Kindly let me have your valued opinion based 

on the following statement of facts: 

“On the 15th day of January, 1941, the State of 

Texas as Plaintiff and the Santa Margarita Independent 

School District and the Willacy County Water Control 

and Improvement District No, 1 obtained judgment 

against a named defendant for taxes, penalties and 

inter-est then due the respeciive taxing bodies for the 

years involved in the suit, 

“Afterward, on the 1st day of July, 1941, by 

Sheriff’s deed, the Sheriff sold said property to the 

State of Texas in its own behalf and in behalf of 

Willacy County, Texas, in trust for the use and benefit of itself and Santa Margarita Independent School 

District and Willacy County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1. 

“Thereafter, after the expiration of the redemption period and six months, to-wit, on the 3rd day of 

August, 1945, at the request of the Willacy County 

Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, Intervener therein, the Sheriff sold the said property 

to a private individual. 

“The Sheriff applied the proceeds of the sale, 

first, to the payment of all costs in said suit, and 

all costs and expenses of sale and resale, and distributed the balance among the taxing units participating in said original judgement pro rata and in 

proportion to the amount of their tax liens against 
Hon. R. F. Robinson, page 2 

such property as established in said judgment. 

In making this application, the Sheriff attempted 

to follow the provisions of Art. 7345b, Section 

9, R. C. S., 1925, as amended. 

“Due probably to the variation in valuation 

and rate of levy for some of the years in question, 

the County and State received more than enough 

money to pay the taxes against the property for 

the years involved in the suit and the subsequent 

years up to date, but the Santa Margarita Independent did not receive a sufficient amount to 

pay the taxes, penalties, etc. on the land involved 

to the present date. 

“The School District contends that since the 

State received all of its taxes and the School shows 

up a deficit, the proceeds should be so divided as 

to cause all taxes to be paid to date to all the taxing subdivisions.” 

Article 7345b, Section 9, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, provides for the sale and distribution of the proceeds of sale of property sold to 

a taxing unit under a judgment for taxes where such property is sold by the 

taxing unit that purchased it. 

Said Article and Section further provide that, if sale has not been 

made by such purchasing taxing unit before six months after the redemption 

period provided for in Section 12 of said Article has expired, it shall thereafter be the duty of th,e sheriff to sell such property as therein set forth, in 

which event the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed as follows: 

L‘ 

. . . The Sheriff shaL1 apply the proceeds from 

such sale, first, to the payment of all costs in said 

unit and all costs and expenses of sale and resale 

and all attorney’s fees and reasonable expenses taxed 

as costs by the Court in said suit and shall distribute 

the balance among the taxing units participating in 

said original judgment pro rata and in proportion to 

the amount of their tax liens against such property 

as established in said judgment.” 

A similar question was considered by this department in our 

opinion No. O-3729, wherein the question was as follows: 

“In your second question you are concerned with 

a situation where one of the taxing units has purchased 

property at the original tax foreclosure sale, held the 

same beyond the redemption period in behalf of itself 

and the other taxing units, and subsequently sold the 

property at a price more than enough to satisfy all 

costs, taxes, interest and penalty involved in the original 
Hon. R. F. Robinson, page 3 

tax judgment. You request information as to what 

should be done with the excess.” 

After quoting Section 9 of Article 7345b, said opinion held as 

follows: 

“The above quoted article directs the Sheriff to 

take the proceeds from the sale and to first pay all 

costs and then to distribute the remainder among the 

taxing units participating in the original judgment 

pro rata and in proportion to the amount of their 

respective tax liens established in the tax judgment 

against the property. We believe this is the method 

to be followed in the distribution of the money realized at the second sale regardless of whether the 

money received at said second sale is insufficient to 

satisfy all costs and the amount of the original judgment of whether said amount is in excess of the costs 

and the amount of the original judgment.” 

It seems from your statement of the facts that the sheriff followed 

the correct procedure in distributing the proceeds of the sale referred to. 

The State having been the purchaser at the original sale, there was vested in 

it a defeasible title. As holder of this title, the State was the owner of such 

property for purposes of taxation. Therefore, such property was not subject 

to taxation du:ring the time the title thereto ‘was held by the State and there 

was no question of ac,crued taxes to be taken into consideration in the distribution of the proceeds of such sale. 

We enc,lose for your information copies of our Opinions Nos. 

O-5491 and O-5668. 

Yc:u,rs ve,-y truly, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

JWB:LJ:ps 

APPROVED NOV 17, 1945 

Jas. W. Bassett 

Assistant 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL