§ 62.061.Officer's Liability and Duty of Care

A custody duty pitched higher than the execution chapter’s, and the difference is deliberate.

An officer who executes a writ of sequestration shall care for and manage in a prudent manner the sequestered property he retains in custody.

"Care for and manage" goes beyond keeping. The execution chapter requires an officer to keep levied personalty securely; this requires prudent management, which is an active obligation.

The difference reflects what is being held. Sequestered property is the subject of the suit and will be returned to whoever wins — livestock that must be fed, a business that must be run, equipment that must be maintained.

Property held for months and returned in ruins would defeat the purpose of the writ, whichever side prevailed.

If the officer entrusts sequestered property to another person, the officer is responsible for the acts of that person.

That closes an obvious route out. An officer cannot place goods with a storage yard or a caretaker and disclaim what happens to them.

It is also practical. An officer has no facilities for cattle or heavy equipment, so entrusting is normal — and the responsibility follows rather than the property leaving the officer’s account.

The officer is liable for injuries resulting from his neglect or mismanagement or from that of a person to whom he entrusts the property.

The standard is neglect or mismanagement, not strict liability, so loss despite prudent management does not produce liability.

The following sections supply the counterweight: the officer is entitled to just compensation and may hold the property until money spent on it is repaid.