Opinion ID: 1763371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Identity of Bonds' Owners

Text: The clerk contends unclaimed cash bail bonds cannot be presumed abandoned because their owners are identified defendants in criminal cases whose existence and location are not unknown. We disagree. Viewed within the statutory framework, it is clear that unknown, as used in section 72.101(a) of the Property Code, does not mean completely unidentified. Chapter 74 of the Property Code governs the disposition of funds that are presumed abandoned under section 72.101(a). Among the comptroller's responsibilities outlined in Chapter 74 is the duty to attempt to provide notice to each reported owner of abandoned property. See TEX. PROP.CODE § 74.201. The notice must be provided in the county of the property owner's last known address and must contain, inter alia, the reported owner's name and city of last known address. See id. The notice statute would be nonsensical if knowledge of the owner's name and last known address meant the property could never be presumed abandoned. In addition, we note that section 72.101(a) is phrased in the present tense; personal property is presumed abandoned if, after three years, the [owner's] existence and location ... is unknown. See TEX. PROP.CODE § 72.101(a)(1) (emphasis added). The fact that the defendant's existence and location may have been known when the bond was filed does not mean that it is known after the passage of more than three years with no request from the defendant for the bond's release. We conclude that knowledge of the defendant's name and last known address at the time the bond was filed does not preclude the application of section 72.101(a). See Eason v. Calvert, 902 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.App.Houston [1 st Dist.] 1995, writ denied) (holding that funds were presumed abandoned under section 72.101, even though they were deposited by an identifiable person).