The feds seized a parcel of real property that they want to give to our Sheriff for use as a gun range. The feds require that the property be transferred in the name of the Sheriff unless state law prohibits such a transfer, in which case it may be transferred in the name of the County. Our Sheriff would naturally like to get the property in his name so that a future Commissioners Court cannot decide to use the property for some other purpose.

My initial opinion is that the Sheriff cannot own property in his name unless a law permits it...and I am not aware of any such law. I have also advised that there are many reasons why having property in the name of the Sheriff may be a bad idea, such as whether the property would be included in the County's general liability policy.

Are any of you aware of any specific law on this? Have any of you encountered anything similar in your dealings with the feds?

What if the property were placed in the name of the Lubbock County Sheriff's Office? The insurance should provide coverage. Or could the transfer document limit use of the property for only a shooting range?

When I stated in my post that the property had to be titled in the name of the Sheriff I meant in the name of the Sheriff's Department...not in the individual name of the office-holder.

The underlying issue is whether the Sheriff's Department is a legal entity separate and apart from the County. If so, arguably it could hold title to property. My understanding is that the Sheriff's Department is a sub-division of the County and that it has no legal status separate and apart from the County.

My problem with insurance is that if we argue, on the one hand, that the Sheriff can hold title to property separate and apart from the County, then wouldn't we have to concede that the insurance purchased for the County's property does not cover property owned by the Sheriff?

I have to agree that it is not permitted to have it in the Sheriff's name.

It can't be 'John Smith', because that is an individual. What happens when Sheriff Smith leaves office and fails to transfer the deed? Or dies?

It can't be 'Sheriff's Office', because the Office or the Department is not a separate legal person. It is the County. The Department or Office can't hold property as if it did not belong to the County, unless you can find a statute that I have missed.

Caution: Figure out what happens to the land if not used for the intended purpose, and make sure the default result is clear.

Ann's conclusion and your own suspicions are correct. Neither Texas law nor federal law views an agency or division of a Texas county as a separate legal entity vested with the capacity to own and hold property. More directly, however, we are all familiar with the precept that the power over the county's business is assigned by article 5, section 18(b) of the Constitution to the commissioners court, and that authority extends to the essentially exclusive power to bind the county in contract. Further, as cases such as City of Boerne and Guynes confirm, the commissioners court's basis for any action on behalf of the county must find authority in the constitution or statutes. Statutorily, it is the commissioners court that is granted authority to contract with the federal government for acquisition of land and agree to bind the county to any terms and conditions the feds may impose as a prerequisite to conveyance of the land. Tex. Loc. Gov't Code sec. 270.004. The statute expressly contemplates vesting title to the acquired property in "the county." Id. at (c). A quick search turned up no authority for a sheriff or his department to separately contract with the feds for real property acquisition.

So, lets say its a City PD. Should the property/title be in the City's name? If so, how does one ensure that it is used for law enforcement purposes pursuant to Chapter 59? Maybe in the court order?

I'm facing this right now. So, any advice is greatly appreciated.

I am not sure if this will help in your particular situation, but Article 59.06 was revised during the last session (effective 9-1-07.) It now allows a law enforcement agency to "loan or transfer" forfeited property to a city, county or school district, with no "law enforcement" restriction on the use of the property. So, if the law enforcement agency consents to the "loan or transfer," there should be no issue with how the property is used.

Have them give it to the county with deed restrictions that it only be used as a firing range for the sheriff's department and that it reverts to the original owner if it is used for other purposes. Now of course the court can accept it with those conditions and then condemn the remaining interests later if it wants too....but maybe that will satisfy everyones present concerns....