,

P THE ATTORSET GENERAL OF TEXAS

bfxch23,1988

Honorable Fred G.Rodriguez Opinion No. JM- 875 Criminal District Attorney 200Main Plaza, Suite 406 Re:Whether abail bondsSanAntonio, Texas 78205 man's security deposit under article 2372p, V.T.C.S., may be accepted inthe form of combination of cash and property (RQ-1336)
DearMr. Rodriguez:
you askwhether the Bexar County Bail Bond Board may accept from abondsman applicant a combination of cash and property to meet the required $50,000 security deposit required by article 237213-3,V.T.C.S. Section 6(f) of article 2372~3-3provides inpart: (f)Upon notice from the [county bail bond] board that the application has been tentatively approved, the applicant shall then: (1)deposit with the county treasurer of the county inwhich the license isto be issued a cashier's check, certificate of deposit, cash, or cash equivalent in the amount indicated by the applicant under Subdivision (5)of Subsection (a)of Section 6 of this Act but in no event less than $50,000 except incounties with populations of less than 250,000 persons by the most recent federal census, the amount for applicants in said counties shall be $10,000 to beheld ina special fund to be called the bail security fund; or (2)execute intrust to the board deeds to the property listed by the applicant under Subdivision (4) of Subsection (a) of Section 6of this Act, which property shall bevalued in the amount indicated on an

p.4265Honorable Fred G.Rodriguez - Page 2 04-875)

. ?
appraisal by amember of the Society ofReal Estate Appraisers or aMember of Appraisal Institute of the county in which it is located, but inno event less than $50,000 valuation, except in counties with populations of less than 250,000 persons by the most recent federal census, the amount for applicants in said counties shall be $10,000, the condition of the trust being that the property may be sold to satisfy any final judgment forfeitures thatmay be made inbonds onwhich the licensee is surety after such notice andupon such conditions as are required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1965, amended * forfeiture cases: thzs board shLl1 %e bond the deeds of trust inthe records of each county inwhich the property is located, and the applicant shall pay the filing fees. (Emphasis added.)
You state that your question has been prompted by the submission by an applicant of a certificate ofdeposit for $20,000 and non-exempt property, valued at $30,000.00, to meet the $50,000 security deposit requirement. We understand your question tobe whether an applicant must meet the security deposit requirement by complying with either subsection f(1) or subsection f(2) orwhether an applicant may rely on a combination of the type of security identified in subsection f(1) and the type of security identified in subsection f(2) tomeet the $50,000 requirement. Section 5(f) of article 2372p-3 delineates the authority of the county bail bond board as follows:

(1)To exercise anypowers incidental or necessary to the administration of this Act, to supervise and regulate all phases of the bonding business and enforce this Act within the county, and toprescribe and post any rules necessary to implement this Act: (2)To conduct hearings and investigations andmake determinations respecting the issuance, refusal, suspension, or revocation of licenses tobondsmen within the provisions ofthis Act and to issue licenses to those applicants who do not qualify, and to suspend or revoke the licenses of licensees who commit violations under this Act or the

p.4266Honorable Fred G.Rodriguez -Page 3 (JR-875)

-

P rules prescribed by the board under this A&[.]
In Bexar Countv Bail Bond Board v. Deckard, 604 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.Civ. APP. - San Antonio 1980, no writ) the rule-making authority of a county bail bond board was in issue. InDeckard, the court stated:

The rule-making power delegated to the board under the statute ismerely the power to make rules relating to themaking and setting ofbail bonds in the county. There is no language granting power tomake rules relating to the qualifications which must be met by applicants for licenses. A reasonable interpretation of the statutory language supports the conclusion that no such power may be implied. . . . [The statute1 desianates the persons to whom licenses are to be issued, and the desianation is in terms of oersons who ou 1 fvunder the terms of the statute. (Emphazii added.) 604 S.W.2d at 217.
An agency may not by its own rules extend or add to the powers listed in the statute. Attorney General Opinion 374-251(1984).
We think that section 6(f) defines a board's authority to accept deeds ofproperty intrust tomeet the security deposit requirement. An applicant desiring to act as abondsman inBexar County may execute adeed to property to satisfy the security deposit requirement, but inno event may the property bevalued at less than $50,000. Therefore, we do not think that the board has authority to accept adeed toproperty valued at less than $50,000. Also, theword "or-"inordinary and natural use has a disjunctive meaning. Burnett v. State, 514 S.W.2d 939, 940 (Tex.Crim. App. - 1974). Black's Law Dictionary defines the word gror~tas follows:
A disjunctive particle used to express an

alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It isalso used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means 'inotherwords,' 'to

p.4267Honorable Fred G.Rodriguez - Page 4 (m-875)

, wit,' or 'that isto say.' The word 'or' is tobe used as a function word to indicate an alternative between different or unlike things. Citv of Toledo v. Lucas County Budaet Commission, 33 Ohio St.2d 62, 294 N.E.2d 661, 663. In some usages, the word '01' creates a multiple rather than an alternative obligation: where necessary in interpreting an instrument, 'or'may be construed tomean 'and.' Atchison v. Citv of Enalewood. Colo., 568 P.2d 13, 18. Black#s Law Dictionary 987 (5thed. 1979).
InWeir v. Bauer, 286 P. 936 (Utah 1930) the Utah Supreme Court, inaddressing themeaning of the word 'or' ina statute, stated:

But theword 'and'can never be substituted for 'or' in a statute when themeaning of the language used in the statute is clear and there isnothing in itto call for the substitution. 286 P. at 945. Therefore, we read section 6(f) as permitting a bondsman inBexar County to satisfy the security deposit requirement by executing adeed to real property only in accordance with the specific terms of section 6(f)(2). Thus, the Bexar County Bail Bond Boardmay not accept from abondsman applicant a combination of cash and real property to meet the required $50,000 security deposit required by article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S.
SUMMARY The Bexar County Bail Bond Board may not accept from abondsman applicant a certificate ofdeposit for $20,000 and adeed to real property valued at $30,000 tomeet the $50,000 security deposit requirement under article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S. Very truly yo , 

# L-l-h

.

JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas

p.4268Honorable Fred G.Rodriguez -Page 5 (JM-875)

h

MARY KELLER

First Assistant Attorney General
LOUMCCRFARY Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN Chairman, Opinion Committee Prepared by TomG. Davis Assistant Attorney General

p.4269