§ 34.048.Purchase by Officer Void

One sentence, and the consequence is absolute.

If an officer or his deputy conducting an execution sale directly or indirectly purchases the property, the sale is void.

"Void", not voidable. Nobody needs to move to set the sale aside, no time limit applies, and no showing of unfairness is required. The sale had no effect.

The conflict is complete, which is why the rule is. The officer sets the terms, gives the notice, conducts the bidding and decides when to stop — and every one of those levers can lower the price for a buyer who is also the auctioneer.

"Directly or indirectly" is what makes the rule effective. A purchase through a relative, a nominee, a company, or an agreement to acquire afterwards is caught.

Including the deputy closes the obvious route. An officer who could not buy might otherwise arrange for the person conducting the sale on their behalf to do so.

The rule takes no account of good faith or of price. An officer who paid full value at a properly conducted sale has still bought at their own auction, and the sale is void.

That absoluteness is the design. A rule requiring proof of unfairness would put the burden on a debtor who cannot see how the sale was conducted; a flat prohibition requires no such proof.

Note the qualification: the officer or deputy conducting the sale. The prohibition attaches to the person running the auction rather than to the office generally.