Two different 1989 Texas laws changed the required wording for a special-district real estate disclosure notice. Which version do sellers have to use?

Texas AG Opinion JM-1208: Two 1989 Bills Both Amended the Same Real Estate Notice. Which Wording Controls?

Plain-English summary

The Executive Director of the Texas Water Commission asked about a mismatch created when the 1989 Legislature passed two separate bills that both amended the required wording of the written notice a seller must give a buyer when selling real estate located in certain special water districts under section 50.301 of the Water Code. House Bill 1333 added language about standby fees to the notice as part of a broader package of standby-fee provisions. Senate Bill 1207 separately rewrote much of the same notice language, including its own standby-fee language, and added a new section, 50.3011, describing how the notice should be modified to include the standby-fee wording.

The Attorney General concluded the two bills could be harmonized rather than read as creating conflicting notice requirements. Comparing the language, the opinion found the standby-fee wording in the two bills was nearly identical, aside from an extra word in the Senate Bill version that didn't change the substance, and a difference in exactly where the language was to be inserted in the notice, which likewise didn't affect the notice's validity. Because Senate Bill 1207's broader set of changes already incorporated the substance of House Bill 1333's narrower standby-fee addition, the opinion concluded a seller who worded the notice according to Senate Bill 1207 would satisfy both bills' requirements.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990. 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.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1990)

Sellers of real estate in covered special water districts: The opinion concluded that wording the required section 50.301 notice according to Senate Bill 1207's language, including its cross-reference to section 50.3011's standby-fee wording, would satisfy the requirements of both 1989 amendments, so a seller did not need to give two separate notices or worry about which bill's exact language to follow.

The Texas Water Commission: The opinion resolved an apparent statutory conflict the Commission had flagged between two same-session amendments, concluding the legislature did not intend duplicate or inconsistent notice obligations.

Common questions

If two different 1989 bills both changed the same real estate notice requirement, does a seller have to give two separate notices?
No, according to the opinion. The Attorney General found the bill that added the new section 50.3011 made clear the legislature did not intend to require two separate notices under section 50.301.

Which version of the notice wording should a seller actually use?
The opinion concluded a seller who worded the notice according to Senate Bill 1207 (including its cross-reference to the standby-fee language in new section 50.3011) would satisfy both bills, because Senate Bill 1207's broader set of changes already incorporated the substance of House Bill 1333's narrower standby-fee addition.

Does leaving out an extra word one bill added, or placing the standby-fee language in a slightly different spot, invalidate the notice?
No. The opinion concluded that the single extra transitional word ("also") in the Senate Bill 1207 version, and the difference in exactly where the standby-fee language appeared in the notice, did not affect the notice's validity.

Background and statutory framework

Section 50.301(a) of the Water Code requires a person selling real estate located in a specified type of special water district to give the purchaser a separate written notice, executed and acknowledged by the seller, describing the district; section 50.301(b) prescribes the exact wording of that notice. In 1989 the legislature passed two bills changing that prescribed wording within the same session: House Bill 1333 (Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1218), whose provisions all related to standby fees and which added standby-fee language to the section 50.301(b) notice among other Water Code changes, and Senate Bill 1207 (Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 935), which made broader additions to and deletions from the section 50.301(b) notice language and also created new section 50.3011, directing that the notice be modified to incorporate specified standby-fee language.

Senate Bill 1207 itself addressed the sequencing question: its section 4 provided that the bill's section 3 (adding section 50.3011) would take effect on whatever date House Bill 1333 took effect, and would have no effect at all if House Bill 1333 failed to take effect. The opinion read this as clear evidence the legislature intended the two bills' notice requirements to operate together, not as duplicate obligations. Applying the rule from Martin v. Sheppard that acts adopted in the same legislative session should be read together and harmonized, the opinion compared the substantive standby-fee language in both bills and found it nearly identical, with only an extra transitional word in the Senate Bill 1207 version and a difference in where the language was positioned within the notice, neither of which the opinion found legally significant.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Water Code § 50.301(a) (special district real estate notice requirement)
• Tex. Water Code § 50.301(b) (prescribed wording of the notice)
• Tex. Water Code § 50.3011 (standby-fee notice language added by Senate Bill 1207)
• Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1218, at 4937 (House Bill 1333)
• Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 935, § 1, at 3977 (Senate Bill 1207)

Cases:

• Martin v. Sheppard, 201 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Tex. 1947)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-1208
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1990/jm1208.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative. The source PDF does not print an issuance date anywhere on page 1; based on the surrounding opinion sequence (JM-1207 was issued August 15, 1990, and JM-1209 was issued August 17, 1990), this opinion was issued in mid-August 1990.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Mr. Allen Beinke
Executive Director
Texas Water Commission
P. O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Opinion No. JM-1208

Re: Potential conflict in two amendments adopted at the same legislative session regarding requirements of notice for selling realty located in a special district (RQ-1960)

Dear Mr. Beinke:

You ask about the effect of two 1989 amendments to section 50.301(b) of the Water Code.

Section 50.301 requires a person who sells real estate in a specified type of special district to provide to the purchaser written notice regarding the district. Water Code § 50.301(a). The notice is to be a separate written document executed and acknowledged by the seller. Id. § 50.301(b). The statute prescribes the language of the notice. Id.

In 1989 the legislature adopted two bills that changed the language prescribed by section 50.301(b). Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1218, at 4937 (hereinafter House Bill 1333); ch. 935, at 3977 (hereinafter Senate Bill 1207).

House Bill 1333 amended section 50.301 of the Water Code as well as several other sections of the Water Code. All of the provisions of House Bill 1333 relate to standby fees. One of those provisions added several sentences about standby fees to the language prescribed by section 50.301(b).

Senate Bill 1207 made a number of additions to and deletions from the language prescribed for the notice to be given under section 50.301(b). Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 935, § 1, at 3977. It also added a new provision, section 50.3011 of the Water Code, that provides that the notice form required to be used under section 50.301(b) shall contain specified language regarding standby fees. Id. § 3, at 3980. Section 4 of the bill provides as follows:

This Act takes effect immediately, except that Section 3 takes effect on the date that H.B. No. 1333, Acts of the 71st Legislature, Regular Session, 1989, takes effect. If H.B. No. 1333 fails to take effect, Section 3 has no effect.

It is clear from that provision that the legislature did not intend to require that two separate notices be given under section 50.301 of the Water Code. Thus, your question is whether the language prescribed by Senate Bill 1207 or the language prescribed by House Bill 1333 is to be used.

Acts adopted at the same session of the legislature should be read together and harmonized. Martin v. Sheppard, 201 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Tex. 1947). In this case, harmony is easily achieved. Senate Bill 1207 made a number of changes in the notice language, including the addition of language regarding standby fees, whereas the only change made by House Bill 1333 was the addition of language regarding standby fees. The language regarding standby fees in the two bills is almost identical. The only difference in the language prescribed is that Senate Bill 1207 contains an extra "also." That additional word merely provides a transition: it does not change the meaning of the language. The only other difference is that House Bill 1333 indicated the place in the notice at which the language regarding standby fees was to be incorporated. Senate Bill 1207, in contrast, simply provided that the notice form should be "modified in the manner necessary to incorporate" the prescribed language regarding standby fees. Water Code § 50.3011(b). Consequently, if a vendor words the notice in accordance with Senate Bill 1207, he will have incorporated the substantive changes mandated by House Bill 1333. We do not think that the inclusion or omission of the extra "also" would affect the validity of the notice. Nor do we think that the position of the language regarding standby fees would affect the validity of the notice.

SUMMARY

Two bills enacted by the 71st Legislature amend section 50.301(b) of the Water Code, which prescribes the wording of a notice required by section 50.301(a). Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1218 (House Bill 1333); id. ch. 935 (Senate Bill 1207). Because the changes in language mandated by Senate Bill 1207 include the change in the language mandated by House Bill 1333, a purchaser can satisfy the requirements of both bills by complying with the notice as prescribed by Senate Bill 1207.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RENEA HICKS
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General