### ORNEY GENEKAL OF EXAS

Honorable R. F. Robinson County Attorney Willacy County Raymondville, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-6884 Re: Distribution ofproceeds of adelinquent tax sale among various taxing units. We acknowledge receipt ofyour request for an opinion on theabove question, said request reading as follows:

“Kindly let me have your valued opinion based on the following statement offacts: “On the 15thday ofJanuary, 1941, the State of Texas as Plaintiff and the Santa Margarita Independent School District and theWillacy County **Water** Control and Improvement District No, 1obtained 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 ofJuly, 1941, by Sheriff’s deed, the Sheriff sold said property to the State ofTexas inits ownbehalf and inbehalf of Willacy County, **Texas,** intrust for the use and benefit of itself and Santa Margarita Independent School District andWillacy County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1. “Thereafter, after the expiration ofthe redemption period and six months, to-wit, on the 3rd day of August, 1945, at the request oftheWillacy County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1,Intervener therein, the Sheriff sold the said property toa private individual. “The Sheriff applied the proceeds ofthe sale, first, to the payment ofall costs in said suit, and all costs and expenses of sale and resale, and distributed the balance among the taxing units participating insaid original judgement pro rata and in proportion to the amount of their tax liens againstHon. R. F. Robinson, page 2

such property as established in said judgment. Inmaking this application, the Sheriff attempted tofollow the provisions ofArt. 7345b, Section 9, R. C. S., 1925, as amended. “Due probably to thevariation invaluation and rate of levy for some ofthe years inquestion, 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 upadeficit, the proceeds should be so divided as to cause all taxes tobe 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 ofsale of property sold to a taxing unit under ajudgment for taxes where such property is sold by the taxing unit that purchased it.

Said Article and Section further provide that, ifsale has not been made by such purchasing taxing unit before six months after the redemption period provided for inSection 12of said Article has expired, it shall thereafter be the duty ofth,esheriff to sell such property as therein set forth, in which event the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed as follows:

L‘

. . .The Sheriff shaL1apply the proceeds from such sale, first, to the payment ofall 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 insaid suit and shall distribute the balance among the taxing units participating in said original judgment pro rata and in proportion to the amount oftheir tax liens against such property as established in saidjudgment.” A similar question was considered by this department in **our** opinion No. O-3729, wherein thequestion was as follows:

“In your second question you are concerned with a situation where one ofthe taxing units has purchased property at the original tax foreclosure sale, held the same beyond the redemption period inbehalf 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 originalHon. R. F. Robinson, page 3

taxjudgment. You request information as towhat should be done with the excess.” After quoting Section 9 ofArticle 7345b, said opinion held as follows: “The above quoted article directs the Sheriff to

take the proceeds from the sale and tofirst pay all costs and then todistribute the remainder among the taxing units participating in the original judgment pro rata and inproportion to the amount oftheir respective tax liens established in the taxjudgment against the property. We believe this is the method to be followed in the distribution ofthe money realized at the second sale regardless ofwhether the money received at said second sale is insufficient to satisfy all costs and the amount ofthe original judgment ofwhether said amount is inexcess ofthe costs and the amount ofthe original judgment.” Itseems from your statement ofthe facts that the sheriff followed the correct procedure indistributing the proceeds ofthe sale referred to. The State having been the purchaser at the original sale, there was vested in ita defeasible title. As holder ofthis title, the State was the owner of such property for purposes oftaxation. 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 ofac,crued taxes tobe taken into consideration in the distribution of the proceeds ofsuch 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