TX JM-233 November 14, 1984

Could the Texas National Guard Armory Board trade state-owned property for another property instead of selling it?

Short answer: Yes. JM-233 concluded that the board could exchange its property for an equally suitable property worth at least as much, subject to the statutory mineral-interest reservation.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.

Disclaimer: This is an official Texas Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority in Texas courts but are not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The opinion dates from 1984; verify current state-property, military-facilities, and mineral-reservation law before relying on it.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

View original AG opinion (PDF)

Texas AG Opinion JM-233: Armory Board Property Exchange

Plain-English summary

The Texas National Guard Armory Board asked whether it could exchange state-owned land for a different property that was equally suitable and had an equal or greater established value. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

JM-233 concluded that the board "is authorized to exchange such property." Its governing statute expressly allowed the board to "exchange or sell" property it acquired and property on which armory buildings stood. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

The opinion limited that conclusion to a replacement property "equally suitable for Armory Board purposes" with an established value at least as great as the state property being transferred. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

The exchange also had to preserve the state's mineral interest. JM-233 treated the board's deed as a deed under the act, which required reservation of "a one-sixteenth mineral interest free of cost of production." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

The opinion emphasized that a state agency's power to convey property could be exercised "only under the legislature's authorization." It found that authorization in the Armory Board statutes. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could the Armory Board exchange property rather than sell it?

Yes. JM-233 relied on statutory language authorizing the board to "convey and exchange, or sell" its property. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Did the replacement property have to be worth as much as the state property?

Yes. The opinion approved a different property with "an established value at least as great as" the value of the state-owned property exchanged. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Did the replacement also have to serve Armory Board purposes?

Yes. JM-233 described the authorized exchange as one for property "equally suitable for Armory Board purposes." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

What mineral interest did the state retain?

The statute quoted in the opinion required a deed to reserve "a one-sixteenth mineral interest free of cost of production" to Texas. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Could any state agency exchange land without legislative authority?

JM-233 said an agency's power to convey state property could be exercised "only under the legislature's authorization." Its answer concerned the authority given specifically to the Armory Board. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Title 97A governed the Armory Board, which article 5931-1 created as a state agency. Subdivisions (6) and (7) of article 5931-5(a) authorized acquisition, holding, conveyance, exchange, and sale of described property. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

The legislature did not specify a separate exchange procedure in Title 97A. JM-233 said it was unaware of a general statute prescribing "procedures or limitations applicable to the exchange of Armory Board property." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

The opinion used the ordinary meaning of exchange, quoting it as the "act of giving or taking one thing in return for another regarded as an equivalent." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Citations and references

Lorino v. Crawford Packing Co., 175 S.W.2d 410, 414 (Tex. 1943), and Conley v. Daughters of the Republic, 156 S.W. 197, 200 (Tex. 1913), appeared with the rule that an agency could convey state property "only under the legislature's authorization." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf
Hoovel v. State, 69 S.W.2d 104, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. - 1934), supplied the statement that "exchange" should receive its usual and generally accepted meaning. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf
United States v. Paine, 31 F. Supp. 898, 900 (D. Mass. - 1940), appeared with the quoted definition of an exchange. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf
Article 5931-10 supplied the one-sixteenth mineral-interest reservation that JM-233 applied to the exchange deed. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Source

Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0233
Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0233.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

November 14, 1984

Mr. Donald J. Kerr
Executive Director
Texas National Guard Armory Board
P. O. Box 5218
Austin, Texas 78763

Opinion No. JM-233

Re: Whether the Texas National Guard Armory Board may exchange certain property

Dear Mr. Kerr:

You ask whether the Texas National Guard Armory Board may exchange state-owned property for a different property equally suitable for Armory Board purposes and with an established value equal to or greater than that of the state-owned property which would be exchanged. We conclude that the Texas National Guard Armory Board is authorized to exchange such property.

Title 97A, V.T.C.S., contains the statutory provisions governing the Texas National Guard Armory Board. The Armory Board is a state agency created by article 5931-1 of that title. Included in the Armory Board's specific powers is the power to "exchange or sell as hereinafter provided" property acquired by the Armory Board and property on which the buildings have been constructed. Subdivisions (6) and (7) of article 5931-5.(a) authorize the board:

(6) to acquire, by gift or purchase, for use as building sites or for any other purposes deemed by said Board to be necessary in connection with or for the use of units of the Texas National Guard, property of any and every description, whether real, personal or mixed, including, but without limitation on the foregoing, leasehold estates in real property, and hold, maintain, sublease, convey, and exchange or sell as hereinafter provided, such property. . . .

(7) to construct buildings on any of its real property, whether held in fee simple or otherwise, and to furnish and equip the same and to hold, manage and maintain all of said property . . . and to lease and sublease, convey and exchange, or sell as hereinafter provided, in whole or in part, all of its property. . . . (Emphasis added).

Subject to constitutional limitations, the disposition of state-owned land is a matter over which the legislature has exclusive control. The power of an agency of the state to convey state property may be exercised only under the legislature's authorization. See Lorino v. Crawford Packing Co., 175 S.W.2d 410, 414 (Tex. 1943); Conley v. Daughters of the Republic, 156 S.W. 197, 200 (Tex. 1913); Attorney General Opinions JM-149 (1984); MW-62 (1979); C-207 (1964); V-787 (1949); V-320 (1947).

The legislature did not expressly specify in Title 97A the manner in which the Armory Board may exercise its authority to exchange state-owned property except that article 5931-10 provides that

[a]ny sale or deed made pursuant to the terms of this Act shall reserve unto the State of Texas a one-sixteenth mineral interest free of cost of production. . . .

We believe that a deed of state-owned property by the Armory Board to effect an exchange of property is a "deed made pursuant to the terms of this Act." We are not aware of any general statutes which prescribe procedures or limitations applicable to the exchange of Armory Board property. But see V.T.C.S. art. 5421c-12 (sale or exchange of land by political subdivision).

"The word 'exchange' has a well-defined meaning and should be construed and given the usual and generally accepted meaning." Hoovel v. State, 69 S.W.2d 104, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. - 1934). An exchange is the "act of giving or taking one thing in return for another regarded as an equivalent." United States v. Paine, 31 F. Supp. 898, 900 (D. Mass. - 1940); Black's Law Dictionary 505 (5th ed. 1979); Webster's New International Dictionary 889 (2d ed. 1947). Hence, we conclude that, subject to the mineral reservation in article 5931-10, the legislature authorized the Armory Board to exchange state-owned property for a different property equally suitable for Armory Board purposes and with an established value at least as great as that of the state-owned property which would be exchanged.

SUMMARY

The Texas National Guard Armory Board may exchange state-owned property for a different property with an established value at least as great as that of the state-owned property which would be exchanged.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.