Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
KP-0097
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2016Background
- The Texas Attorney General was asked whether real property returned to the State under Tex. Educ. Code § 12.128 is “unappropriated public domain” that must be returned to the School Land Board as part of the Permanent School Fund (PSF).
- Section 12.128 applies to property purchased or leased with funds received under Tex. Educ. Code § 12.106 after September 1, 2001, and makes such property state public property held in trust by the charter holder; when a charter ceases operation the Commissioner of Education must take possession and supervise disposition.
- Subsection 43.001(a)(2) defines the PSF to include “all of the unappropriated public domain remaining in this state,” a term not defined in statute; the opinion analyzes the ordinary meaning of “unappropriated.”
- The General Land Office (GLO) and chapter 31 of the Natural Resources Code administer State real property generally and maintain inventories and processes for certain dispositions; the GLO argued PSF treatment would conflict with §12.128.
- The opinion limits its analysis to the legal effect of §§ 12.128 and 43.001 and does not decide factual ownership questions about any particular parcel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether property returned under §12.128 is “unappropriated public domain” for the PSF under §43.001(a)(2) | Property returned to State should be PSF (i.e., unappropriated public domain) | §12.128 expressly makes the property public property under Commissioner control, so it is not unappropriated for PSF | Property returned under §12.128 is likely not unappropriated public domain for the PSF because the Legislature set it aside and vested control and disposition with the Commissioner |
| Whether §12.128 requires the Commissioner to take possession and supervise disposition | N/A (question was whether PSF status applies) | §12.128(c) directs Commissioner to take possession, assume control, and supervise disposition of specified property | §12.128(c) plainly requires the Commissioner to take possession, control, and supervise disposition of returned property |
| Whether Chapter 31 (Natural Resources Code) allows the GLO to govern disposition of §12.128 property | Chapter 31 controls State real property and thus governs disposition | Chapter 31 does not give the GLO unilateral authority over property returned under §12.128 but provides for GLO involvement | Chapter 31 does not authorize unilateral GLO control of §12.128 property but contemplates GLO involvement and assistance in disposition when appropriate |
| Whether the Texas Constitution Art. III, §51 and the Appropriations Act are the only constraints on disposition and proceeds | Only those provisions govern disposition and proceeds | Those provisions apply (prohibit gratuitous grants; appropriate proceeds) but other law may also apply | Art. III, §51 (and related constitutional constraints) and the Appropriations Act provision apply; proceeds are appropriated to TEA, and other law may also govern disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. 2015) (statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain language)
- Beeman v. Livingston, 468 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2015) (courts may consult dictionary definitions for undefined statutory terms)
- Tex. Mun. League/Intergov't Risk Pool v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 74 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2002) (framework for evaluating constitutionality of public expenditures)