Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-1054
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2014Background
- POA covenants are treated as contracts; constitutional protections against contract impairment may yield to public-safety/public-welfare statutes; Texas Property Code §202.006 requires filing dedicatory instruments to be effective; §202.010 bans solar devices restrictions in dedicatory instruments; questions were framed about constitutional protections and whether §202.006 constitutes a bill of attainder; analysis references both Texas and U.S. Constitutions; three inquiries to assess impairment/punishment standards are cited; the opinion concludes on the likelihood of a court upholding the non-punitive nature of §202.006 and the potential for contract impairment to be justified by public purpose; the opinion is advisory and relies on established case law to frame potential judicial outcomes.
- The matter addresses whether POA covenants receive constitutional protection against impairment and whether §202.006 is a bill of attainder; the opinion treats covenants as contracts and discusses the Contract Clause doctrine in light of substantial public purposes; it then analyzes whether §202.006 constitutes punishment under the bill of attainder prohibition and concludes it would likely not be so considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are POA covenants protected by contract impairment provisions, given public purpose justifications? | POA covenants are contracts; impairment should be scrutinized under Contract Clause. | Contract Clause may yield to statutes serving significant public purpose. | Not absolute protection; public purposes may justify impairment. |
| Is Texas Property Code §202.006 a bill of attainder? | §202.006 burdens POAs to file instruments, implying punishment. | Burden is nonpunitive and serves notice/public-record objectives. | Not a bill of attainder under Texas and U.S. constitutions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barshop v. Medina Cnty. Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) (Contract Clause analysis with public welfare considerations)
- Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1978) (Contract Clause does not bar police powers; public purpose justified)
- Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1977) (Punitive vs. regulatory burdens; historical punishment scope)
- Selective Serv. Sys. v. Minn. Pub. Interest Research Grp., 468 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1984) (Three inquiries to determine punishment under bill of attainder)
- In re Commitment of Miller, 262 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008) (Three-pronged test for punishment under bill of attainder)
- HL Farm Co-operative v. Self, 877 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1994) (Contract Clause analysis context in Texas)