### . .

ENERAL

Honorable Alex R. Tandy County Attorney Parker County Courthouse Weatherford, Texas 76086

Dear Mr. Tandy: Opinion No. M-1001 Re: Whether Parker County Hospital District was properly charged for portion of attorneys’ fees incurred in defending tax injunction suits against County and others. You initially requested the Opinion ofthis office ontwo questions which, through subsequent correspondence and telephone conversations, were reduced, in substance, to the following:

Was Parker County Hospital District properly charged with a portion ofthe attorneys’ fees charged in connection with defending two suits to enjoin the collection oftaxes for Parker County for itself and for the political subdivisions carried onthe tax rolls ofParker County? We answer this question inthe affirmative.

We have examined the facts submitted to us both by you andthe attorneys involved. These include: (1) aletter from the county judge to the attorneys confirming their employment in defending the two injunction suits, and (2) your most recent letter inwhich you assert that your inquiry is motivated by the objection or complaint ofthe Parker County Hospital District. From these ithas become evident that the matter covered by your question has been fully and finally resolved insofar as all parties involved are concerned, except that the hospital dist.rict does notwant to pay for its proportionate part ofthe attorneys’ fees.

From all ofthe materials submitted, we will briefly summarize the material facts.

Parker County had entered into a contract for the collection of delinquent advalorem taxes inthe usual form furnished by the Comptroller of Public Accounts ofthe State of Texas and “approved as to substance and form



### -4882-Honorable Alex R. Tandy, page 2 (M-1001)

only” by the Attorney General. The compensation stipulated in said contract was inthe amount of fifteen per cent (15%) ofthe taxes, penalties and interest collected, and is authorized by Articles 7335 and 7335a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Thereafter, an original suit was filed in 1969 against the Weatherford Independent School District and Parker County by Brazes Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as “Cooperative, ” seeking- to enjoin the collection oftaxes onproperty owned by the Cooperative. Subsequently, the Cooperative filed a second suit against Parker County in 1970 to enjoin the collection of 1970 taxes. Both ofthese suits were consolidated, and Parker County filed a compulsory counterclaim for the collection of 1969 delinquent taxes and for 1970 taxes. The Parker County Commissioners Court employed the firm of attorneys representing the county inthe delinquent advalorem tax suits to represent the county and the other taxing jurisdictions (including the hospital district), for which Parker County assessed and collected ad valorem taxes, inthe two separate and independent tax injunction suits brought against the County. While the hospital district was not made aformal named party to the two injunction suits, itwas constructively aparty. Itwas included inthejudgment as entitled to recover aportion ofthe taxes. The County Tax Assessor-Collector was made aparty, andhe had amandatory duty to assess and collect the hospital district’s taxes, with authority to act inall respects according to the laws ofthe State of Texas relating to state, county, and district taxes. Section 16, Acts 59th Leg., R.S., 

### 1965,Ch. 35, p. 93, S.B. 283. Furthermore, under that statute, Section 17made itthe duty ofthe County Attorney, District Attorney, or Criminal District Attorney not only to represent the county in civil matters but also “to represent the hospital district in all legal matters. ” Inaddition, the hospital district is required to contribute sufficient funds to the General Fund ofthe County topay all additional salaries and expenses incurred in order for these officers to perform their required duties for the hospital district.

The attorneys employed by the County to assist the County Attorney representing the county ,andthe taxing jurisdictions represented by the county were entitled tobe comp,ensated a reasonable fee for their services, apart from the fifteen per cent (15%) statutory fee towhich they were entitled for shy separate litigation inthe collection of delinquent taxes. The amount of th&?fee charged and paid was below that suggested for such services by the minimum fee schedule, and it is not contended that itwas excessive inthis respect.

-4883-Honorable Alex R. Tandy, page 3 (M-1001)

Following ajudgment infavor ofthe Defendants and CrossPlaintiffs, and pending appeal, an agreement was reached under the terms ofwhich (1) all court costs were paid by the Cooperative and (2) recovery was granted to the State of Texas, Parker County, and all political subdivisions and districts whose taxes were collected by the Assessor and Collector for Parker County, for their taxes, penalty and interest due for the year 1969, andtaxes and interest due for the year 1970. Parker County Hospital District is apolitical subdivision whose taxes are assessed and collected by Parker County, as hereinabove observed. Parker County Hospital District was created in 1965. Acts 59th Leg., R. S., Ch. 35, p. 93. Under the provisions ofthis Act, District taxes are assessed and collected on county tax values inthe same manner provided by law for county taxes. Section 16provides inpart:

‘1.

. . The Tax Assessor-Collector ofParker County shall be charged and required to accomplish the assessment and collection of all taxes levied by and onbehalf ofthe District. ” (Emphasis added. ) Furthermore, that Tax Assessor-Collector, inassessing and collecting the taxes levied by the District, is required to deduct from payment tothe District a one per cent (1%) fee for assessing and aone per cent (1%) fee for collecting taxes. The balance ofthe taxes are then deposited inthe District’s depository.

“In all matters pertaining to the assessment, collection, and enforcement oftaxes for the District the County Tax Assessor-Collector shall be authorized to act inall respects according tothe laws ofthe State of Texas relating to state and county taxes. ” Supra, 

### SW. 16, pp. 98-99. (Emphasis added. ) The suits ultimately resulted inthe recovery ofthe delinquent taxes due all taxing jurisdictions, including those due the hospital district; and in

### our opinion the hospital district was properly charged its pro rata share ofthe fees attributable tothe delinquent taxes recovered in its behalf. Parker County Hospital District also was properly charged with its portion ofthe attorneys’ fees charged in connection with the defense ofthe two suits to enjoin collection oftaxes for Parker County, on its behalf and inbehalf ofthe political subdivisions carried onthe tax rolls ofParker County, including the hospital district.

-4884-Honorable Alex R. Tandy, page 4 (M-1001)

Section 17of Chapter 35 also fortifies this conclusion. Itreads as follows:

“It shall be the duty ofthe County Attorney, District Attorney or Criminal District Attorney, as the case may be, charged with the duty of representing the county in civil matters, to represent the hospital district in all legal matters; provided, however, that the Board of Directors shall be authorized at its discretion to employ additional legal counsel when the Board deems advisable. ” (Emphasis added. ) Inthe instant case, the Board of Directors did not see fit to employ “additional legal counsel, ” andwe must presume, therefore, that such inaction onthe part ofthe Board amounted to an authorization, not actually needed, ofthe actions ofthe attorneys employed by the Commissioners Court intheir behalf. Itwas not necessary for the hospital district to enter into a contract topay the Delinquent Tax Collector any fee; nor was itnecessary for the hospital district to have been aformal party to the injunction suits or to have been consulted during the proceedings in order for itto be charged its pro-rata share ofthe court costs, or expenses oflitigation. The Court itself recognized this and necessarily proceeded onthis premise in rendering judgment specifically for Parker County and for the use and benefit of all political subdivisions and districts whose taxes are collected by the Assessor-Collector ofTaxes for Parker County. Itmay not accept the benefits ofthe services and the tax monies collected without also having to share inthe obligations or expenses incurred inthat connection. Itmay not receive the benefits ofthe contract without paying the reasonable value ofthe benefits so received, same being its proportionate part ofthe attorneys’ fees in question. See Angelina County v. O’Quinn, 429 S.W. 2d 211 (Tex. Civ. App. 1968, nowrit); Hoffman v. Davis, 128 Tex. 503, 100 S.W. 2d 94 (1937); Sluder v. San Antonio, 2S.W. 2d 841 (Tex. Comm. App. 1928. ) SUMMARY Parker County Hospital District is properly chargeable with aportion ofthe attorneys’ fees charged pursuant to a contract by Parker County for defense oftwo tax injunction suits brought to restrain the collection oftaxes for Parker County for itself andthe po-

-4885-Honorable Alex R. Tandy, page 5 (M-1001)

litical subdivisions (which include the hospital district), carried onthe county tax rolls. Acts 59th Leg. , R.S. , 1965, Ch. 35, p. 93, S.B. 288.

Prepared by Kerns Taylor Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. E. Allen, Acting Chairman Jim Broadhurst Marietta Payne Sig Aronson J.C. Davis SAM MCDANIEL Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-4886-