TB~EATTORMSY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable R. L. Lattlmore Opinion No. C-757 

Criminal District Attorney 

Edlnburg, Texas Re: Jurisdiction of suits 

for delinquent personal 

property taxes, plus 

interest and penalties, 

where the total amount 

sued for is over $200 

Dear Sir: but lesa than $500. 

You have requested the opinion of this office in regard 

to the proper jurisdiction of suit8 for delinquent personal 

property taxes plus penalties ard interest where the total 

amount In controversy la over $200 but less than $500, exclusive of interest and costs. 

We quote from your letter, requesting the opinion, as 

follows: 

"A aerloua question has arisen concerning 

the collection of Delinquent Personal Property 

Taxes for Hldalgo County as to whether the 

District Court or County Court has jurisdiction 

when the amount of taxes Involved, Including 

penalty and Interest, 1s over $200.00 but less 

than $500.00. The question can further be broken 

down with regard to the following three situations: 

One: If suit Is original1 filed by the State 

(For State or County Taxes T? Two: If suit IS 

originally filed by a City or Independent School 

District? Three: If suit is originally filed 

by a City or Independent School Dlstrlct and the 

State should Intervene In such suit?" 

Situation One. 

Since 1876 the Constitution of the State of Texas has 

provided that the District Court shall have original juria- 

-3637- 
Hon. R. L. Lattimore, Page 2 (C-757) 

‘ . 

diction in all suit8 in behalf of the State to recover 

penalties. 

Section 8, Article V, of the Conatltutlon of Texaa, 

reada, in part, as follows: 

"The District Court ahall have original 

jurisdiction . . . in all suits in behalf of 

the State to recover penalties. . . ." 

(Emphasis aupplled) 

Article 1906, Vernon's Civil Statutes, also confers orlginal jurisdiction upon the District Court In such cases, 

providing that: 

"The dlatrict court shall have original 

jurisdiction in civil cases of: 

1. 

recover 11 

. . . 

Section 

in part: 

Suits in behalf of the State to 

~;;;en:;;,s~;;f;;;~s and escheats. 

16, Article V, of the Constitution states 

"The County Court . . . shall have exclusive Jurisdiction In all civil case8 vhen the 

matter in controversy shall exceed in value 

$200, and not exceed $500, exclusive of intereat . . .' 

Article 1949, Vernon's Civil Statutes, confers exclusive orlginal jurisdiction in such cases in the County 

Court. 

We have been unable to find a case directly in point 

with regard to ad valorem taxes, but the case of State v. 

Kfnnham, 361 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Sup. 1962) Involving a suit 

for delinquent unemployment compensation contributions 

and penalties arising by virtue of failure to pay the 

taxes on time, held that jurisdiction of the suit by the 

State for the penalties was conferred upon the District 

Court. In that case the Court stated the question and 

decided it aa follows: (Beginning at page 192) 

-3638- 
Hon. R. L. Lattlmore, Page 3 (C-757) 

“Aa the case la before us, the ~controlling question la whether this suit Is for a 

‘penalty I a8 uaed In Art. V, Sec. 8, State 

Conatitutlon, Vernon’s Annotated Statutes, 

ao aa to confer jurladictlon on the Diatrlct 

Court to try this cause, or whether thia la 

a suit for a debt consisting of taxes 8nd aa 

a part thereof penalties, governed by Article 

V, Section 16, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Courty Court In all civil 

case8 where the matter in oontroveray shall 

exceed $200 and not exceed $90 exclusive of 

Interest. . . .‘I 

“The reasoning in the case of Jonea v. 

Wllllama (1931) 121 Tex. 94, 45 S.W.2d 130, 

79 A.L.R. 983, settles the question before 

us. After a lengthy and thorough diacusalon, 

that case holds that the interest and the 

penalty exaction8 added to delinquent taxes 

by the various conatitutlonal and atatutory 

provisions are ‘penalty’ rather than lntereat eo nominee. The Court says: 

‘The lmposltlon of penalties 

la the means provided to prevent 

tax delinquencies, and since the 

word imPlie some form of Duniahment , It Is obvloua all leglalatlon competent under the constitution must be of that nature. . . . I 

@mphaala theirs) 

The case of Jonea v. Williama, 

supra,‘d;cides that the &nalty and interest 

added to delinquent taxes la not an Incident 

of the taxes, but Is a separate and distinct 

Item provided by the Leglalature aa a punlshment for failure to pay taxea prior to dellnquency, and therefore, a ‘penalty’ within 

the meaning of the Constitution. . . .‘I 

It has been consistently held by this office that both 

the State and County ad valorem taxes upon any single separately assessed Item of property must be paid at the aame 

-3639- 
Hon. R. .L. Lattimore, Page 4 (C-757) 

time in order to obtain a dlacount under Article 7255b, 

Vernon18 Civil Statutea. Attorney Oeneral’a 

3 

lnlon Nos. 

o-1262, o-6124, o-1187, o-6397, v-734 and C-33 . It IS 

therefore inconceivable that a suit would be filed for 

state taxes and not for county taxes or vice versa. It 

might also be noted that Article 7332, Vernon’s Civil 

Statutes, provides that the Diatrlct or County Attorney 

shall represent the State and County in all aulta against 

delinquent taxpayera. 

It ia therefore, our opinion that aults for the 

collection of delinquent personal property taxes owing 

to either the State or County must Include the tax owing 

to the other and will invariably Include penalties and 

Interest, and thus be suits in behalf of the State for 

penalties aa defined by the Kingham case. We hold that 

exclusive jurladlctlon for such suits is conferred upon 

the District Court. 

Situation Two. 

In considering where jurladlction is conferred In 

suits brought by cities and independent school districts 

for personal property taxes, where the amount In controversy la between $200 and $500, we turn again to Article 

V, Section 16, of the Texas Constitution, which directs 

all such suits are to be brought in the County Court. 

Article 1949, confers exclusive original Jurisdiction 

upon the County Court for these suits. 

An exception to the law as expressed by the preceding 

statute exists when the value of the property against which 

the lien la asaerted exceeds $500. When the value of the 

property exceed8 $500, the District. Court has concurrent 

jurladlctlbn with the County Court except in cases where 

the value of the property exceeds $1,000, in which case 

.the .DlatrSqt .Court haa. exclusive jurlsdlctlon. 

; .;. ‘., a. Amount in Controversy 

~’ Considering the problem of amount in controversy, the 

Court in Billingaley v. City of Fort Worth, 278 S.W.2d 869 

(Tex.Clv.App.1955, error ref.n.r.e.) held, in a suit by a 

city and school district for delinquent taxes assessed 

agalnat personal property of the defendant, that: 

-3640- 
Hon. R. L. Lattlmore, Page 5 (C-757) 

II 

. . . the 

,$ty and school 

enaltles on delinquent taxes 

_p must be conaldered aa In 

the nature of damage8 and a8 such are to be 

conaldT,red as part of the amount In controveray . (Bracketed lnaert supplied) 

It would aeem that this holding alao aupports the proposition that a suit by a city or Independent school district 

for taxes and penaltlea la not a suit in behalf of the State 

and thus not subject to the rule as later laid down by the 

Klngham case, aupra, and that proper jurisdiction for such 

Suits la conferred upon the County Court. 

b. Existence of Lien 

Article 1060, Vernon’s Civil Statutea, provides a lien 

against personal property in behalf of cities, stating In 

part, . . . All taxes shall be a lien upon the property 

upon which they are asseased. . .” 

Article 106Ca, Vernon’s Civil Statute8 amended In 1963, 

oonfers upon all school districts the benefit of all liens and 

remedies for the security and collection of their taxes which 

are granted incorporated cities and towns. Therefore, the 

provisions of Article 1060 are likewise applicable In favor 

of school districts. Article lC6Ca provide8 aa follows: 

“(a) All of the provisions of Title 122A, 

of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas of 1925, 

be, and the same are made available Insofar as 

same may be applicable and necessary to all 

school districts and municipal corporations 

organized under any general or special law of 

this State and which have power and authority 

to levy and collect their own taxes, and that 

each of such school dlatricts and such municipal corporations shall have the benefit of 

all liens and remedies for the security and 

collection of taxes due them as is provided 

in said Title In the case of taxes due the 

State and County, and as otherwise provided 

by the General Laws of this State in the case 

of taxes due Incorporated cities and towns.” 

{Emphasis supplied) 

-3641- 
,% 

J . 

Hon. R. L. Lattlmore, Page 6 (C-757) 

c. Value of Property 

Concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the District 

Court and the County Court if the value of the propert 

against which the taxes sued for are assessed exceeds 

but does not exceed $1,000 and the taxing authority Is 

i 500 

provided with a lien against such property. The case of 

Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Rucker, 88 S.W. 815 (Tex.Clv.App. 

1905, released after being affirmed on certified question, 

99 Tex.125, a7 s.w. ala) states as foilows: 

“It Is a well-settled general rule of 

decision in this state that In a suit to 

enforce a lien upon personal property the 

value of the property upon which the lien 

Is asserted, and not the amount of the debt 

claimed, determines the Jurlsdlctlon of the 

court. Marshall v. Taylor, 7 Tex. 235; Smith 

v. Qlles, 65 Tex. 341; Cotulla v. Goggan, 77 

Tex. 32, 13 S.W. 742; Real Estate Co. v. Bahn, 

87 Tex. 583, 29 S.W. 646, 30 S.W. 430; Lane 

v. Howard, 22 Tex. 7." 

A suit for collection of delinquent taxes is in the nature 

of an action for debt. City of Henrietta v. Eustis, 87 

Tex. 14, 26 S.W. 619 (1894) 

The statutory lien of cities, granted by Article 1060, 

and of school districts, granted by Article 106Ca, Is upon 

the whole of the property taxed and all of such property 

is subject to sale for the taxes. Such being the character 

of the lien, sought to be enforced, the value of the property 

upon which the lien Is asserted must be considered In determining the jurisdiction of the court. Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. 

Rucker, supra. Compare Southwestern Drug Corp. v. Webster, 

mW.2d 241 (Tex.Clv.App.1951). The rule Is well stated 

in 15 Tex.Jur.2d 523 Courts, Sec. 83, as follows: 

“In actions to foreclose liens on personal property the amount sued for as well as 

t.he value of the property on which foreclosure 

is sought are both considered in determining 

the amount In controversy; the greater amount 

determining the jurisdiction. . . .‘I 

-3642- 
Hon. R. L. Lattimore, Page 7 (C-757) 

Although we find no oaae directly In point wherein 

thla proposition haa been applied to delinquent tax aults 

for personal property taxes, we believe that the following statement from the case of Ball v. Beaty, 223 S.W. 

552 (Tex.Civ.App.1920) wherein the court refers to the 

Texas & N.O.R. co. v. Rucker caee, aupra, la a correct 

statement of the law. The court aald, at page 556: 

“It may be considered aa establiahed 

by the decision in the case of T & N.O. 

Railway v. Rucker, approved by the Supreme 

Court, that the rule to the effect that 

the value of the peraonal property upon 

which a lien is sought to be foreclosed, 

if in excess of the amount of the debt, 

controls in determining jurisdiction Is 

not limited to contract liena, but applies 

to co;mon-law liens, and atatutory lines. 

. . . (Emphasis supplied) 

Situation Three. 

In responae to your last question, no problem is 

presented if the suit has been filed In the Matrlct Court 

by a city or independent school district and jurisdiction 

. is conferred upon the District Court. Certainly the State 

and County could Intervene in such suit for the purpose of 

collecting taxes and penalties due to them so long as the 

rules regarding interventions are followed. 

However, where jurisdiction Is not conferred upon the 

District Court, i.e. the amount in controversy being less 

than $500 and the value of the property against which the 

taxes are assessed being less than $500, under the holding 

of the Kingham case, supra, it is clear that the District 

Court is the only Court that has jurisdiction In which the 

State and County may properly file suit for delinquent personal property taxes, penalties and interest. The County 

Court does not have jurladlctlon of such suita. Therefore, 

the suit for the collection of State and County taxea should 

be filed in the District Court, where any proper lnterventlons by other taxing authorities may be accomplished under 

the applicable rules of law. 

-3643- 
1. -. 

. 

Hon. R. L. Lattlmoret Page a (C-757) 

SUMMARY 

Jurisdiction for all suits in behalf of 

the State and County for penalties, regardless 

of amount Is conferred exclusively upon the 

District Court. 

Jurisdiction for cases filed by cities or 

independent school districts seeking recovery 

in an amount between $200 and $500 is conferred 

exclusively upon the County Court unless the 

property against which the taxes are assessed 

is of a value of more than $500, in which 

lnatance the District Court ha8 concurrent 

jurisdiction so long as ruch value does not 

exceed $1,000. 

The State and County may not intervene 

in suits In County Court for collection of 

State and County taxes where penaltles are 

Involved, such action being a suit In behalf 

of the State, jurladlctlon for which is conferred exclusively upon the Dlatrlct Court. 

Very truly yours, 

WAGGONER CARR 

JFP:ck 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Alan H. Minter 

Marietta McGregor Payne 

Malcolm L. Quick 

Brandon Blckett 

APPROVED FORTHEATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: T. B. Wright 

-3644-