THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF' ?!?EXAS GROVERSELLERS AUWX-IN xx.TExAs
HonorableM8xwellWsloh Couaty Attorney BOWLS county Ibstoa, Texas
Dear 81~: opinionHo. O-6601 Ret Liabilityof Bowl. CountyLevee ImprovementDistrictmb. 2 for State, oounw amd a&o01 8-8 and prsoedure to be followedia foreolosiagtax lien.
1n your letter of August 29, 1946, youorlled our attentioato a traot of about five thouaaE'aorea of land,iaBowi@ County,Texas,on whioh no state,oourty or sohoolfaztm hwa beon paid siaoe 1919. .Ths Bowie COUWYLO~~O RnprovementDirtriotXo. 2 wan oreatad'ia1919, the lbuve deforjbodtraot being all of the lr8d within lid dirtriot. Bondr were ls- sued on vvanl oooasionaby the distriotinvarying amoumtr,aad the bonds are still outstanding. You &ate that the distrlatis now "defunot,"aad that a Mro Porn11 olnimsto have over 61% of the ?zoadissue.Pndis holding himselfout as managerof the traot of lud.
In subsequentcorrespondencewith youn we are idvisedthat the land mus never conveyedto said distriot,but that, in your opinion,title to the land is stillin certainprivateindividuals. In your originalopiaion request,you sukaitfvr our oonsideratioa the followiagquestiollsr
Olo IS this distriotliablefor stats,oountyamd schooltb~xea?
u20 If it.is liable amd the State foreolosesiBs tax lien in due time, Bill the countyand Btate in any way becane liableto the bondholdersfor t&o mount of their beads?
"30 In the event suit is filed for the oolleotioaof suchtaxes,would it be neoassaryto have oitatiomissuedaad served upon all bondholders?
n40 .Whenthe names of the bondholdersare unkaowmand the officers of the defunotdistrictare unknomm,couldservicebe had by publiation?"
Sfaos the districtin qua&ion, which is a body politicand-oorp- orate (Art. 7979, R.S.), never oaod the 8 aid property,your first ques- tion is an-red in the negative. Further,siaoethe propertyia not publiolyowned, it is not exrmptkan tmtioa. St. Edwards'CollegeV. Morris,Tax Collector( Sup, Ct.) 17 S.% 6120 HonorableMax&l Welch - Page 2 (O&Cl)
Referringto your seomd question,In thewoat the Stata should foroloseits lien, there muld be ao liabilityby the &to or runty to bondholders3althoughthe land in questionmight be subjeotto a tax lien in favor of the distriotfor my unpaidtaxes levied ly the districtfor the purpose of rst',riag said bonds or for other purposes.
Bondholders,as such, have no lien upon the properkyin a distriot. The lien arises by virtue of the tax leviedby the distriotto pay the principaland intereston the bonds, uidthetax ad lien are ia favor of the distriot. It would theroforoba unneoessaryto make the bondho;dero partiesto your foreclosuresuit. Ilbme amming, of oourso,that a0 valid transferof its tu lisr has heon made by the districtto bondholders or other transferees.
Your third quostim is also alurwerad ia tho negative.
This makes u amwwrto your fourth questionurneoassary.
% encloseherewitha oopy of our OpinionNo. O-6662which you may find of rssistanoeinthis mattum
Yoursvary tlu1y
A'STQRNEYOENEFzALOFTEXA8
BY /a/ J. &%hur 8.ndlir
J. &%hur Suzdlin A5sidmat APPRWED MARCH L3, 1946 /p / Cwlos Ashley FIRST A6SISTANT APPRWED ATTORmY GENERAL oPmIoN COUITPEE a B.lV.H.8. J~U: shaiman