DAN MORALES 

.ATTORSEY CS’ERAL 

Office of t@e !ZIttornep @eneral 

Qtate of QLexaS 

Honorable James M. Kuboviak 

Braaos County Attorney 

Brazes County Courthouse 

Bryan, Texas 77803 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

Harris County Attorney 

1001 Preston, Suite 634 

Houston, Texas 77002-1891 

January lo,1994 

Opinion No. DM-283 

Re: Whether section 291.007 of the Local 

Government Code authorizes a county 

commissioners court to set a security fee of 

not more than five dollars to be taxed as 

court costs in each civil case filed in a 

probate court, as well as in a county court, 

county court at law, and district court and 

related questions (RQ-613) 

Dear0entie.me.n: 

Each of you has asked us to clarify section 291.007 of the Local Government 

Code. Section 291.007 provides as follows: 

FEE FOR SECURITY. (a) The commissioners court may set a 

fee not to exceed $5 to be collected at ‘the time of tiling in each civil 

case filed in a county court, county court at law, or district court 

which shah be ttied as other costs. The county is not liable for the 

COStS. 

(b) In any civil case brought by the state or a political 

subdivision of the state in a county court, county court at law, or 

district court in a county in which the commissioners court has 

adopted a fee under Subsection (a) of this section in which the state 

or political subdivision is the prevailing party, the amount of that fee 

shall be taxed and collected as a cost of court against each 

nonprevailing party. 

(c) The clerks of the respective courts shah collect the costs 

established by Subsections (a) and (b) of this section. 

(d) If a commissioners court sets a security fee under 

Subsection (a) of this section, the county and district clerks shall 

collect a fee of S 1 for tiling any document not subject to the security 

fee. The county is not liable for the costs. The county or district 

clerk, as appropriate, shall collect this fee. 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 2 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike DriscoU 

(e) Costs and fees collected under Subsection (c) or (d) of this 

section shall be paid to the county treasurer, or to any other official 

who discharges the duties commonly delegated to the county 

treasurer, for deposit in the courthouse security fund established by 

Article 102.017, Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Acts 1993, 73d Leg., ch. 818, $2 (adding Local Gov’t Code 5 291.007). Article 

102.017(a), (b) of the Code of CriminaJ Procedure, to which section 291.007(e) of the 

Local Government Code refers, requires a county to collect as a cost of court a five dollar 

secmity fee from a defendant convicted in a district court for a felony offense and a three 

dollar security fee from a defendant convicted in a county court, county court at law, or 

district court for a misdemeanor offense. The county clerk is to pay these mandatory fees 

to the county treasurer, who must deposit them into a IImd to be known as the courthouse 

security fbnd. Code Crini. Proc. art. 102.017(c) (as added by Acts 1993, 73d Leg., ch. 

818.3 1); see also Local Gov’t Code 3 291.007(e) (as added by Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 

818.5 2). The cxxnmissioners court is to administer the courthouse security Cmd, which 

istobeused 

only to finance the following items when used for the purpose of 

providing security services for buildings housing a district or county 

wult: 

(1) the purchase or repair of X-ray machines and conveying 

systems; 

(2) handheld metal detectors; 

(3) wakthrougb metal detectors; 

(4) identification cards and systems; 

(5) electronic kr&ing and surveiUance equipment; 

(6) bailiffs, deputy sheriffs, deputy constables, or contract 

security personnel during times when they are providing appropriate 

seulrity senices; 

(7) @we; 

(8) confiscated weapon inventory and tracking systems; or 

(9) locks, chains, or other security hardware. 

Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 818, $ 1 (adding CodeCrim. Proc. 102.017(c), (d)). 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 3 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

Concerning section 291.007 of the Local Governmen t Code, Mr. DriswU asks five 

questions: 

1. Can the Commissioners Court set a security fee of not more 

than SS to be taxed as court costs in each civil case filed in a county 

court, county court at law, district court. and probate court in Harris 

county? 

2. If the Commissioners Court sets a security fee under 

Subsection (a) of Section 291.007 of the Local Government Code, is 

the County Clerk required to collect a fee of $1 for filing each and 

every document not subject to the security fee? 

3. Should the County Clerk collect the said Sl fee in lieu of 

other filing fees (such as fees for filing deeds, assumed name 

certifkxtes, etc.) prescribed by law or in addition to such other tiling 

fee? 

4. Should the Cotmty Clerk charge the $1 fee for each motion 

or other pleading Sled in the county court and uxmty court at law 

after the fllbtg of the original petition at which time the security fee 

nottoexceedSSwaspaid? 

5. Can the Commissioners Court provide for a security fee of 

notmorethanS5tobetsxedascourtcostsineachcivilcasefiledin 

a county court, county court at law, district court, and probate court 

and authorize the clerks of such courts to fix the amount of the 

security fee at an amount not to exceed $5 in any one case? 

Mr. Kuboviak asks about the correct interpretation of “any document” in section 

291.007(d), which requires a county clerk in a county in which the wmmissioners court 

has chosen to assess a security fee “to wllect a fee of Sl for filing any donrmenr not 

subject to the security fee.” (Emphasis added.) 

The legislature enacted section 291.907 of the Local Government Code, as well as 

article 102.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in 1993. Senate Bill 243, and its 

wmpanion bii in the House, House Bill 882, were introduced in response to recent 

shootings in wmthouses, notably in Tarrant and Dallas counties. See House Comm. on 

Comty AfFahq Bill Analysis, S.B. 243, 73d Leg. (1993) (hereinafter Bii Analysis); 

Hearings on S.B. 243 Before the Senate Comm. on Intergovernmental Relations, 73d Leg. 

1 (Feb. 17,1993) (statement of Senator Leedom, author) (transcript available from Senate 

Staff Services). Courthouse violence indicated a need for increased security in the 

courthouses to protect both courthouse personnel and members of the public who visit the 
Honorable James M. Ruboviak - Page 4 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

wurthouses. See Bill Analysk, srcpro; Hearings on S.B. 243 Before the Senate Comm. on 

Intergovernmental Relations, 73d Leg. 1 (Feb. 17, 1993) (statement of Senator Ieedom, 

author) (tmnscript available from Senate StaE Services). The legislature recognized, 

however, that the installation of a security system in a wurthouse would add to the county 

budget expenses for which the county may not have provided. See Bill Analysis, supra. 

Consequently, legislators proposed to authorize a wmmissioners court to levy a “user fee” 

to provide revenues that partially would cover the increased securities costs. See id.; 

Hearings on S.B. 243 Before the Senate Comm. on Intergovernmental Relations, 73d Leg. 

1 (Feb. 17.1993) (statement of Senator Leedom, author) (transcript available from Senate 

Staff Services) (referring to fee as “user fee”); id. (statement of Craig Pardue, representing 

Dallas County) (same); Hearings on S.B. 243 Before the House Comm. on County 

Affairs, 73d Leg. (statement of Representative Jones, sponsor) (Apr. 21, 1993) (same); 

Debate on S.B. 243 on the Ploor of the Senate, 73d Leg. 2 (Mar. 17, 1993) (statement of 

Senator Sibley) (transcript available from Senate StatI Services) (same); id. at 6 (statement 

of Senator R&lift) (same). 

As introduced, Senate Bill 243 and House Bill 882 both proposed to require a 

camty wrmnissioners wurt to set a security fee “not to exceed SS [which] shall be 

wllected at the time of tilii in each civil case tiled in a wunty or district 

court. . . , except in suits for deliiuent taxes.” The bii did not propose to wllect a 

secmity fee from defendants in criminal cases; it did not propose to wllect the security fee 

in civil cases brought in wtmty courts at law; it did not propose to wllect a Sl fee “for 

filing any document not subject to the security fee.” These omissions were discussed 

during the biis second reading on the floor of the Senate: 

Senator Sibley: Many, many, many more people enter those 

courthouses than the ones that file the [civil] lawsuits, so I think [the 

burden of paying for increased security costs] is being put on that 

group [of people filing civil lawsuits] out of proportion to. . their 

use of the wurthouse. . 

Senator Harris: Have you, in reading over this bill, have you 

noticed how Senator Leedom [the author of the bill] has intentionally 

leg out tax cases from paying a part of the fee? So. . we’re 

gomta make cases where there’s a mother. . . with children, trying to 

get a divorce to protect the children and herself, pay this extra [five] 

dollars. . . but yet somebody who’s out there trying to beat the 

school districts out of paying their school taxes, we’re not gonna 

charge them . a fee for their use of the courthouse . 

. . 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 5 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

Did you notice that this bill.. . speci6caUy exempted out 

crimindcases?.. . Why shouldn’t the criminal help pay for this 

increased security ifit’s necessary? 

You think there’d be anything wrong with somebody who goes 

up to get their. . . marriage certificate paying a little something on a 

fee . . ? 

Senator Sibley: If they use the courthouse’ then perhaps they 

ought to also. If this is gomta be put as a user fee, . , then I think 

anybody who uses the courthouse--maybe they oughta have a 

turnstile where you put a quarter in when you go through the metal 

detector or something. 

Balanced against this wncem that the costs be spread to everyone who uses the 

wurthouse. was a legislative wncern, which several members of the House and Senate 

voicad, that court costs on civil cases are so high as to prohibit low income people from 

bringing a civil action. See Hearings on H.B. 882 Before the House Comm. on County 

ASirs, 73d Leg. (Apr. 14,1993) (statement of unknown represenmtive) (tape available 

from House Committee Services 05ce) (expressing wncem that costs just to file civil 

cam “tremendous,” so that some people no longer can afford to fde); Hearings on S.B. 

243 Before the House Comm. on County AGin, 73d Leg. (Apr. 21,1993) (statement of 

unknown representative) (tape available from House Committee Services office) (stating 

that some divorce cases cost S250 just to file); Debate on S.B. 243 on the Ploor of the 

Senate, 73d Leg. 2 (Mar. 17, 1993) (statement of Senator Sibley) (transcript available 

from Senate Staff Services) (stating that many people who file lawsuits cannot afford 

additional fee); id. at 3 (statement of Senator Luna) (stating that people who will have to 

pay fee will be poor). But see id. (statement of Senator Leedom) (stating that rule 145 of 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes person who is unable to atford costs of 

tiling original action may file athdavit to that effect, would apply to security fee proposed 

in S.B. 243). 

During the bill’s third reading on the floor of the Senate, Senator Leedom 

introduced a floor substitute that, he believed, dealt with the legislators’ wncems, 

particularly those concerns that more people should be subject to the security fee. Debate 

on S.B. 243 on the Floor of the Senate, 73d Leg. 1 (Apr. 15, 1993) (transcript available 

from Senate StaE Services). The floor substitute proposed exacting a five dollar fee from 

a convicted defendant in a felony case and a three dollar fee from a convicted defendant in 

a misdemeanor case. Id. In a tinther effort to spread the fee to all people wming in to the 

wmthouse, the floor substitute proposed levying a one dollar fee on “all those that come 

in the wurthouse [to] file papers.” Id. 
Honorable James M. Kubotiak - Page 6 (DM-283). 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

In light of this legislative history, we turn now to ~your specitic questions. Mr. 

Driswll first asks whether, in Harris County, the clerk must wUect a security fee 

(assuming the wmmissioners court has assessed such a fee pursuant to section 291.007(a) 

of the Local Government Code) on civil cases filed in the probate court, as well as in the 

county court, the county court at law, and the district wurt. Usually, of course, a county 

court has the general jurisdiction of a probate court. Tex. Const. art. V, 5 16; Prob. Code 

5 4. A district court generally has jurisdiction over executors, administrators, guardians, 

and wards. Tex. Const. art. V, 5 8; Prob. Code 5 S(a). However, the legislature has 

provided certain counties with either a statutory probate wurt, county court at law, or 

another statutory court exercising the jurisdiction of a probate court. See generally Gov’t 

Code ch. 25, subch. C. Harris County has four statutory probate wurts. Gov’t Code 

3 25.1031; see id. Q 25.1034 (providing for Harris County probate wurts). 

Whether a clerk may collect a security fee on a probate case filed in a statutory 

probate court or another statutory wurt exercising the jurisdiction of a probate wurt will 

depend on the resolution of two issues: tirst, whether a probate case is a “civil case” for 

purposes of section 291.007 of the Local Government Code; and second, whether we 

should interpret the list of clerks of wurt authorized to wllect the security fee to include 

clerks of statutory probate courts. In regard to the first issue, we note that Craig Pardue, 

qresenting Dallas County, testified before. the Senate Committee on JntergovemtnentaJ 

Relations, that the Dallas District Attorney’s office had dratIed the language of Senate Bii 

243, as introduced, “to track the law library fee that the wmmissioners currendy assess.” 

Hearings on S.B. 243 Before the Senate Comm. on Intergovemmental Relations, 73d Leg. 

2 (Feb. 17,1993) (banscript available from Senate Staff Services). Section 323.023(a) of 

theL.ocdGov emment Code requires a wmtnissioners wurt to set a stun “not to exceed 

S20 [to] be taxed. wllected, and paid as other costs in each civil case filed in a county or 

district court, except suits for delinquent taxes.” 

In Attorney General Opiion H-725 (1975) this office considered whether “civil 

cases” in former V.T.C.S. article 1702i (1925),t a statute worded substantially identically 

to section 323.023(a) of the Government Code, included probate matters. Article 1702i 

authorized a clerk of a county or district court to wllect, as costs in each civil case, a fee 

not to exceed five dollars (the specific amount to be determined by the wmtnissioners 

court) for the purpose of establishing county law libraries. The opinion began analyxing 

the question by noting that section 12(a) of the Probate Code provides that, unless 

otherwise specitied in the Probate Code, “[t]he provisions of law regulating costs in 

*Article 1702i, V.T.C.S., provided for county law 11%rariesn coonties with a pcpdation of 

3S0,OOO orfewer. Acts 1953, S3d Leg., ch. 416, at 1014. The legislahue repealed article 1702i in 1977 

by the enactment of a bill that also ameoded former article !702h, V.T.C.S. (1925). a statute pmviding for 

law libmic.s in all coonties. Acts 1977,6&h Leg., ch. 131, 8 2, a1 271 (wdbied in part as Local Gov’t 

Cc+ 0 323.023(a)). 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 7 @M-283) 

Honorable Mike DriswU 

ordinary civil cases sbaU apply to all matters in probate.” Finding nothing in the Probate 

Code that covered costs for wunty law libraries, the opinion stated that article 1701i 

therefore would apply to probate proceedings unkss the Texas courts have held 

OtherwiSe. 

Quoting Hogan v. Turlmd. 428 S.W.Zd 316 (Tex. 1%8), the opinion defined a 

“civil case,” as opposed to a “criminal case,” as one that “‘is not brought by nor in the 

name of the state.‘” Attorney General Gpinion H-725 at 2. Buf see Attorney General 

Gpiion V-292 (1947) at 2 (defining “civil case” as suit to redress violation of contract, or 

to repair injury to property, person, or personal rights). Accordingly, the opinion 

concluded that the county law library fee is taxable as costs in all probate procee&ngs 

unless the action is brought in the name of the state. Attorney General Gpiion H-725 at 

2. Based on the reasoning and conclusion of Attorney General Opinion H-725, we 

conclude that, for purposes of section 291.007(a) of the Local Government Code, “civil 

case” includes a probate matter. See also Attorney General Opinions DM-109 (1992) at 

7-8 (stating that uncontested probate proceeding is “case” within article V, section 11 of 

Texas Constitution) (quoting Attorney General Opinion V-79 (1947) at 3); JM-448 

(1986) at 2-3 (wnciudii that “civil suit” as used in V.T.C.S. article 163Od, section 3(a) 

includes “those suits in which a probate court has jurisdiction”). Bui see homey Gewral 

Gpiion V-292 (wnchuJing that application filed in probate court for delayed bii 

calificate is not “civil case” within meaning of V.T.C.S. art. 1702a-1). 

Notmally, therefore, any county wurt, wunty court at law, or district wurt with 

jurisdiction over a probate matter must charge a sayrity fee on any probate case filed in 

the court (Ssmning the wInmissioners wurt in that county has imposed the sect&y fee). 

In our opinion, the legislature. did not intend to ditkentiate between a probate case tiled 

in county court, wunty court at law, or district wurt and a probate case tiled in a 

statutory probate court or another statutory court exercising the jurisdiction of a probate 

wurt2 See Gov’t Code 49 25.0003(e) (describing “statutory probate court” as “county 

court created by statute with probate jurisdiction”), 25.0026 (providing probate wurt with 

powers and duties), 25.00265 (providing for statutory probate court seal). Consequently, 

we interpret section 291.007 of the Local Government Code to require a clerk, in a county 

in which the wmmissioners wurt has assessed a security fee, to wllect a security fee on 

all probate cases, regardless of the particular court in which the case is filed. 

21n wnnast, the legislatore deliberately ditTerentiatod behveen docunxnts filed in justice cc&s 

anddoarmmufilcdinothercounty~byexcludingjustiaanutsfromthelistof~~~to 

wllect the security fee. See Code Grim. Pnx. art. 102.107(a), @) (as added by Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 

818, p 1); Debate on S.B. 243 on the Floor of. the House, 73d Leg. (May 22, 1993) (statement of 

Rcpreswtative Heflin) (tape available from House Committee Services Oftice) (asking House sponsor 

Representative Jones aboot fact that bill does not propose to levy secmity fee on defendants found guilty of 

mizdmawr injndce coml). 

. .^_ 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 8 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

Mr. Driscoll’s sewnd, third, and fourth questions, and Mr. Kuboviak’s question all 

wncun the one dollar fee that a wunty or district clerk must wllect, ifthe wmmissioners 

court in the wunty has set a security fee, for the “filing of any document not subject to the 

security fee.” Key to the resolution of most of these questions is the proper interpretation 

of the phrase. “any document not subject to the security fee.” From the legislative history 

summarized above, we know that, as originally introduced, Senate BiU 243 proposed to 

w&act the security fee only “at the time of filing in each civil case filed in a wunty or 

district court.” Thus, the fee would be wllected only fram persons filing civil actions and 

only upon the filing of the initial pleading in the action. Because of the concerns of certain 

legislators, however, the originaJ bill was amended to levy the fee on a broader class of 

people: speci6caUy, as Senator Leedom said during the third reading of the bill, “all those 

who come in the wurthouse to file papers.” Debate on S.B. 243 on the Floor of the 

Senate, 73d Leg. 1 (Apr. 15, 1993) (statement of Senator Leedom, author) (transcript 

available 6om Senate Staff Services). Balanced against this, however, is the wncem of 

other legislators about the high cost of bringing a civil action. 

In light of these wncems, we believe the legislature intended to limit the phrase 

“any document not subject to the security fee” to in&de only those documents that are 

noSrdatedtoapreviouslyfiledcivilcase(orthatdonot~~etoacriminalaction,~e 

&tin). We do not believe that the legislature intended, in proposing the one dollar 

searity fee, to guther raise the cost of civil lawsuits by adding a one dollar security fee to 

the cost of t&g each individual document f&d a&r the initial pleading in a civil case. 

The five dollar security fee that is due upon the filing of a civil action is a one-time fee that 

covers the entire action.3 All documents that are not fded in wmtection with an existing 

civil case are subject to the one dollar security fee (unless another statute specificaUy 

exempts a particular document from a fee such as a security fee). Of course, the newly 

enacted article 102.017 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to documents filed in 

wmtection with a felony offense in a district court or a misdemeanor offense in a wunty 

court, wmty court at law, or district wurt. 

We conclude, therefore, that the “fee of Sl for filing any document not subject to 

the security fee,” Local Gov’t Code 8 291.007(d), applies to all documents tiled pursuant 

to alI filing statutes, except statutes like section 12.003 of the Election Code, which 

expressly prohibits charging fees for voter registration not expressly authorized by statute. 

See also Elec. Code 5 1.002(b). Thus, as Mr. Kuboviak suggests, a county or district 

‘ITtheslatutcorapoliticalsuWivisionofthestatcfilesadviladionina~courfcounty 

courlatlaw,ordistrictewn,thesearrityfaisnotdueattbttimcoffiling;rather,pursuanttoscction 

291.007(b) oftk Local Gwanmmt Cod+thes+curityfeeistoktaxedandwllectedascostsagainsttbc 

nonprevailing party, i.e., at the wnclusion of the trial. 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 9 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike JZhiscoll 

clerk must charge the one dollar security fee on leases, wills, marriage licenses,4 and 

deeds. However, Mr. Kuboviak explicitly excludes 6om the list of documents subject to 

the one dollar wcurity fee birth cettiticates, death certificates, and military discharge 

PapersWe understand that Mr. Kuboviak bases the exemption for bii certificates and 

death certificates on Health and Safety Code sections 191.0045(d) and 191.032. Section 

191.032(a) of the Health and Safety Code requires the state registrar to “arrange, bind, 

and permanently preserve birth, death, and fetal death certiticates in a systematic maturer.” 

Section 191.0045(d) requires a local registrar who issues a certified wpy of a death 

certiftcate to charge the same fee that the state bureau of vital statistics charges for issuing 

a certified wpy of a death certiiicate pursuant to section 191.0045(a)(2). Sections 

118.011(a)(4) and 118.015 of the Local Government Code require a county clerk to 

wllect for issuing a certified wpy of a biih certificate or death certificate a fee in the 

same amount as the state registrar of vital statistics and the local registrar of births and 

deaths wllect pursuant to section 191.0045 of the Health and Safety Code. 

Sections 191.0045 and 191.032 of the Health and Safety Code and sections 

118.011(a)(4) and 118.014 0ftheLocal Government Code pertain only to fees for making 

wrtitkd copies of bii certificates and death certigcates. These provisions are not 

relevant to fees that a county clerk may charge upon the tiling and recording of a bii 

ceatificate or death certificate. We fbtd no statute expressly exempting bii and death 

certificates 6om a fee such as a security fee. Fmthermore, we believe that sections 

118.01 l(b)(2) and 118.0216 of the Local Government Code authorize a county clerk to 

setandwUectarewrds management and preservation fee of no more than five dollars 

from a person fUing a birth certificate or a death certificate. .See Letter Opinion No. 92-77 

(1992) at 2 (c&xming in statement that wunty clerk should impose on all documents 

fited in wunty clerk’s office records management and preservation fee). L&wise, in our 

opinion, section 291.007(d) authorizes the clerk to wllect a fee of one dollar for security 

costs upon the filing of a birth certificate or a death certificate. 

Section 192.002(b) of the Local Government Code explicitly prohibits a wunty 

clerk from charging a fee for the “recording and keeping of a military discharge record.” 

Section 192.002 does not explicitly prohibit, however, a clerk from wlkcting a fee such 

‘We believe that Mr. Kubovisk’s assertion that a clerk may collect a fee pursmnt to section 

291.007(d) of the Lmal Govemmw Cede upon the tiling of a marriage license is correct and wnsistent 

with the kgislature’s tntent. See suprcr pp. 4-S (quoting discussion behveen Senators Sibley and Harris 

during second reading of S.B. 243 on floor of Senate). We note that sections 118.011(7) and 118.018 of 

the Lecai Gevemment Cede impose a S2S.w fee “for issuing a msniage license,” which “includes every 

service relating to issuaaa of the license.” The statnte does net, hewever, expressly prohibit the 

collectton of a fee such as that sectton 291.Mn(d) of the L.oA Governmmt Cede autherizes upon the 

filing of a marriage liwue. 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 10 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike Driswll 

as the fee section 291.007(d) of the Local Govermnent Code authorizes. Accordingly, we 

conclude that, pursuant to section 291.007(d) of the Local Government Code, a county 

clerk may charge a one dollar fee upon the filing of a military discharge record. 

Legislators’ wmments about the mounting costs of tiling a civil case suggest that 

the legisIature intended the security fee to be cumulative of other filing fees. Additionally, 

revenue from the security fees are earmarked for very specific expenses that counties must 

pay. Other statutory fees are similatly designated to pay specific county expenses. For 

example, pursuant to section 323.023(a) of the Local Government Code, a clerk of a 

county or district court must wllect a fee, the amount of which the wmmissioners court is 

to set but which is not to exceed twenty dollars, as a cost of court in each civil action, 

except a suit for delinquent taxes. A clerk is to submit revenues from this fee to the 

wunty treasurer, who is to deposit them into the county law library fund. Local Gov’t 

Code $323.023(b). The county may use the county law library find “only for the purpose 

of establishing the law libraty . . or for the purpose of purchasing or leasing library 

materials, maintaining the library, or acquiring iinniture, shelving, or equipment for the 

library.” Id. Additionally, pursuant to sections 118.011(b)(2) and 118.052(3)(F) (as 

added by Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 675, 8 1, at 2509, 2510), a county clerk may (in the 

case of non-court documents) or must (m the case of documents filed in connection with 

civil or probate actions) charge a records management and pmservau ‘on fee. Revenues 

from this fee are. to be used “only for records management and preservation purposes in 

the comty” or for “specitic records p reservation and automation projects.” See Local 

Gov’t Code 85 118.0216, 1180546(d) (as added by Acts 1993,73d Leg.. ch. 675, $j 2, at 

2509,2510), 118.0645(d)(asadded by Acts 1993,73dLeg., ch. 675, § 3. at 2509,251O). 

If a ckrk wllected the security fee in lieu of other statutory filing fees, such as the law 

bi fee or the records management and preservation fee, then those other timds Would 

receive no, or very little, new revenues, We do not believe the. legislature intended such a 

result. 

Thus, we believe that the five dollar security fee is cumulative of other filing fees 

that clerks wkct as costs of wurt. For the same reasons, we believe that the one dollar 

security fee levied on a document not subject to the five dollar security fee is cumulative 

of any other fees that a clerk wllects upon the filing of the document. Accordingly, in 

response to Mr. Driscoll’s third question, we conclude that a county clerk must wllect the 

one dollar fee in addition to other filing fees prescribed by law. 

Fiiiy, Mr. DriscoU asks whether a commissionem court may, without designating 

a specific amount, require the clerks of the various listed wurts to wllect a security fee of 

not more than five dollars, thereby delegating to the clerks of such courts the authority to 

determine the amount of the fee so long as the fee is not more than five dollars in any one 

case. We believe the commissioners court must set the exact amount of the security fee if 

it decides to assess such a fee. During the second reading of Senate Bill 243 on the floor 
Honorable James M. Ruboviak - Page 11 (DM-283) 

Honorable Mike DriscoU 

of the Senate, Senator Leedom emphasii that the bill was permissive in that the bii 

authorized, but did not require, a commissioners wurt to assess a security fee of not more 

than five dollars. Debate on S.B. 243 on the Floor of the Senate, 73d Leg. 5 (Mar. 17, 

1993) (statement of Senator Leedom, author) (transcript available from Senate Staff 

Services). Senator Leedom tiuther stated, however, that “the wmmissioners court 

[would] have to set [the security fee].” 

SUMMARY 

Pursuant to section 291.007 of the Local Gov emmeat Code, a 

commissioners court may set a security fee not to exceed five doUars, 

which the clerk must collect at the time of filing in each civil case 

filed in a county court, wunty court at law, and district court, as well 

as in a statutory probate court or another statutory court exercising 

the jurisdiction of a probate court. If the commissioners court sets 

such a security fee, the clerk also must wllect a security fee of one 

dollar for filing each document that is not related to an existing civil 

case or criminal case (so long as no other statute specifically exempts 

the document from the imposition of a fee such as the fee section 

291.007 of the Local Government Code authorixes a clerk to 

wllect). Of wurse, article 102.017 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure applies to documents filed in wnnection with crimmal 

cases in a county wurt, wunty court-at-law, or district wurt. The 

security fee is cumulative of other filing fees. Finally, under section 

291.007. the wmmissioners court may choose whether to impose a 

security fee, but if it chooses to do so, it must set the fee in an 

amount not to exceed five dollars. The wmmissioners court may not 

delegate to the clerks of court the responsibility of setting the amount 

of the fee. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 
Honorable James M. Kuboviak - Page 12 (De-283) 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

JORGE VEGA 

First Assistant Attorney General 

WILL PRYOR 

Special Counsel 

RENEA HICKS 

State Solicitor 

MADELElNE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Kymberly K. Oltrogge 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1494