‘i .:* 

I 274 

r : 

i 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Ron. T. Il. 'Primbl. 

pirot As8iatant 

State 3uperlnteQdent of 

Publlo Inatruotion 

Austla, Texan 

Opinion Ro. O-7494 

Rer When delinquent school 

c0neb3a by the 

oollect9r in 0011 

letter frosibir. 

of Raat&and co 

.~m 0pm0n 0r 

ohloh ve shall 

you ewrlose a 

3x%~.t 

qw8tioM tberein, 

lng aa rollova I 

lots entitled to the 

on eom8um 6ohool 

8r Art1eI.e 279!5,R.C.3.#ae 

ong with the aceate and 

ths pmalty irid interoat 08 l ah &llndlrtrlet taxes havs beoa ellooatad to 

the wspeetive OOFZJWO sohool distriotr 

vere ooXk@$t%a, vhat 8tatute8 or llmltay to the right8 of suah oomuwn aohool dlssuoh clellnquent penalty awl intereat? 

Third, is the county Board of Education aotlng vithin 

its legal rights In demanding the allmetion and apgwpriatlon 

of penalties and interest on delinquent taxes due eosmon school 

districts to the respctive districts to which the t&x is aapmplated and allocated under the law? 
xon. T. 1. Trmbl., P’@ 2 

VQ rhrll 6ri6xmr th666 qu66tlon6 ln th6 61cgb onl6r 

la rhlrh 118 'be- Bbbd tbm. W@ tim h#mtOfo~~ pu@ed 

upca tb6 question of vbet&er 02 not penaltlrr and iatere6t 

on d0llnqwrat tfU66 vb6n oolleoted follov WA6 6W fund a6 

thu tax upon vhioh tit@ penaltier and lnt8rertlzav6 66arued. 

~~~~~~ 1l0. 0-2566 16 in WOOM ~itih CUP YIOWS, end tn quofr0lr it 68 r0ii0wrt 

"Fbe general rule vlth referen to tb aispcritlon 

of yadltlees and lntareat in at&ted l.n aOolsy oa Taxetiua, 

4th a. vol. 4, P. 3573, 3430. 1621, w r0li0v6: 

'lPsnalti%a for dulinquent taxes generally follcv 

the tax and go tc the dlstpi6t entitled tc tb8 tax, 

ti666 It 16 otherviae pmvided by etetuk. On the 

other hand, if tha pmaltler SW iaposed br th6 U@.tslature, their dirpoaltioa m6t6 In It6 416o~tlon. Ibney 

derived fpom p6m.ltle6 Spa fopirIture6 whelre tax-a8 a~ 

deliaquent are not a part of @a6 tsx, and v&em Isposed 

by the Leglalature It h66 a right to dispose of 6uoh 

ftis 88 it likes, xwgaMle66 of the puPpo6e of tb6 tax, 

a6 qalnot the ob eotlon that publl.6 raollby raised for 

one purpow eamo 3 b0 uwd for a&otwD. . .’ 

"me germcilru16 i6 6X60 rts&ed ia 61~orpus axes, 

p. 1528, S66. ngo, a6 follolf6r 

"Wil.e66 othcmrlse dimeted, lat&mrt, pervalties, 

and oosts eolleated on dellnqueat tams follov tke tax, 

and go to the rtate, oounty, or oity, awOrdl.ng aB thu 

ow or the 0-r ULlptla4d to tb tAxltaa.f,8na, in 

ewes. where tvo orbire of these are laterest%d In the 

tex, suoh latez+st 6ad.psm.ltler 6hould b6 8pprtlorted 

tbMtl iA t&l ratio Of theiF I'66~Ot%V3 6h6P.6 Of 

?iitxx fib hIr a g Olba hg c ( l OSBtiW ~P~Yided tOr by 

rtawo: buttbu L6gl6l6tur6aayQh6~ thl6ml6 6ad 

dispose otherviw OS latereat or penaltIer. A statute 

prcoidLng for the dI6trlbutfon of intereat end p6nalties 

collected in a dtiferent zswner fpom th8 dlrposltlon of 

the taxes on vhloh the Interest and penaltier are based 

dcess not Wsxnt to the appllOatlon of tax66 to objeuts 

other than for vhioh they vere impowd. . .' * 
XOR. T. I. srht’t, 94- 3 

“title10 7336, Retlrad oirll statuter, 1933, u 

mm&d, vhleh provider for pnaltter and fnbmst ea 

dellnqrrsnt tU’66, Wad6 in pt U folhr61 

*'All p666ltlbs 6nd intellest provided far in this 

Act rhell, vhoa crolboted, be paid to the Stot6, oountie*, S.Rd biStP18t6, ii -7, IS @'QpoFtiOJi t0 a t&US 

upoawhlehths pmltyazid inknrtuuoollaotud. All 

discounta provided for la t&la Pat rh6U, l&en alloved, 

be ahtuwd to th #tits, UOUnti66, %nd dlstriok, ii 6z%y, 

la pFopo&ion to I&% tax66 uma vhioh ruah dlwounk ~6 

allotrsd.1 

"You @tat+ that you have been unable to find any 

atatuts in Texas provldlng,,fos the dlBposltloa of penalties and intarest aad tfe haw beon umble t0 fipd say 

axoept th6t quoted 6bov% whloh applibs 66 between the 

0ar10us texl.llg 6uthorities &id lmt 6S3N661~ to the 

VQFlQtaa tuuu or the oountr. 

*In th6 cm68 of Joasa ~6, willDm6, l21 Tex. $4, 

45 33. (26) 130, our S~prez6 Cowt held that penalti%S 

and lnterwtam no part& the *and the Lqiolattm 

thUPefol'6 hW authallity to ~a di6poSition fhslWof OZ’ 

‘to n&W4 6U6h pbLWlti66 aad int%Z'eSt. It i6 8u&3%6t%d 

that t&IS how &fiords th@ bar16 ior StZ’OZh$ UeupsIAt 

Y that t2ls %axlRg authorities do wt aWe.aaril~ kavo ti 

~b?kO4 tin tllt%XWSt 6d P%n6lti%S iZl ths p62'tiOUbP fURd 

for vhiah the delinpwnt tax?36 vere leoled and asresaed. 

We de not think, hurewr, that this 16 the nStul-31 OF 

pWpl' l'.Stdt of Such hOsdiS& 6m it i8 WJ a~~lit36tion 

ot t&e gewral rule that th% L6gislatur6 6my PaLb etbr 

ppOViPiOU6 iOr th6 dl6~6ltion of p6lItitl%S. The qW6tiOn 

here p2666di6d tavolvas the pmper oredftiag Of pbnrrltiee 

W betVWR YU’ioW hUd6 VhaR th@ fd~iS&hP6 h66 AOt 

giwn &ny 6pealfl.a dFPeat%on ~lth ~efmaumo thereto. 

“Xt vould se%m to fo 

rules kiexwinabove stated, %a 

Vi b& agnlo 

8 

y to the general 

wnee 0P atetutory pro~islons to th% ombmy, ponaltles aollected 

for tax dellnqwnay should follov the prluulpal and b% 

prUZEba awOW3 #IfI VEUiOUS fUad6 iOr Which the teJce6 

wm u~lleotml. If thin we-t’ not true there vould be DO 

provielon for the de;m,sit wd accounting Sor pnaltles 

end Intslm9t.’ 
Hon. T, N. Tr2mble, page 4 

Thllr is also tM holding in the oase of Amsrican 

Surety Oolapany of Hev York et al. Y. Board of Trustees of 

Independent Sohool Distr:ot of Fort Worth (Court of Civil 

Appeals, Fort Worth, vrlt of error deniedj 224 8. W. 292. 

TM Court adopted the findings of la&t. and oonoluaLona of 

lav of the trial oourt as the oplnioa of ths Oourt, and 

from the eoMlurloa8 of lsv ve quote M ro1lovsr 

%ie CQUrt oortaludee that both under the general 

primiplos bf the lav and under the charter pwvisicna 

refamed to in the abvre f Indings of fao t all perLalty 

rmneyv colleotsd on aohool tsxes Ln the olty of Ft. 

k’orth became when oollected a part of the school fuud, 

and bolang to the board of’ tmsteos of the inde~mdont 

sohool distriot of Pt. Worth. 

“The oourt oonoludes that in this oaaa the plaintiff, 

the said board of trustees, is not estopped to 8ue fop 

and maover such penalty moneys. ’ 

Upon the authority of this uase ve therefore hold 

that tbs panalty and lntersst on dellnquernt taxes, ,vhethar 

it be for 0omid.m sohool dlstriot taxer alp independent eohool 

distrlot taxea, follov ths tax and should be allocated to the 

respaotlre dfatF:ot8 to vhioh the tax ls under ths lav allocated. 

We nov paas to the question of 1l.vJtatl.m. If ve 

interpret y0ur opinion request oormotly, you vish to know 

vhat lava of liwitatlon, if any, vould apply vhere peenalties 

and interest on delinquent taxer have been errowourly vlthheld by the tax oolleotfng offioLals and allooated erroneously 

to ether purp~aes than to the. school distriot entitled to the 

SW. 

karioan Surety Cmwauy of Rev York et al. v. 57ard 

of h‘ustses of Inde~udent Sahool Diatriots of Fort Worth, 

sugra, also deals vbth the question of UiiLZtstion a* betveen 

the sohool districta and som 0th~ taxiag authority or unit 

errsasouely reoeivinij the saae. In the ab0ve case betveen 

the City ol Fort Worth and the Board of Trustees of the Fort 

Warth Inde~~sdttot School Dlatriot, supi?a, the Court vald: 
Boa, t. II. bIBhI.., wm 5 

“l%a oourt oooahde8 that Uk8 rtatute of limltation of Ia0 

ap911aabl# to tic 

brB plspded by tM oity 18 not 

plaintiif ululer the rlswmstswer 

0r this we, rab that PO part 0r the plaintiir'r 

8&t@e or mtioa 18 b-d by raid Ot8tUtiJ that tb8 

independent 8ehool dirtriot sf Pt. North ia L rubdiWioR ti iMPt~t8ift~ of t&B 8t&O Or %w.BJ 

- that ik tmrtee8 am so\iaty 0rriwri that oald 

dirtrlat snd ita tm8teer, in the diwhW%e of tblr 

dutier for the pEJbOtiOB ad reoowry 0r tha 8ohool 

funds, are aiating in the inkr6st or the piblla arbd 

of the state, and es+4 exerolrlng a portion 0r the 

rovereign pmera of tha atate of ‘pew, and that 

under suah olm~tatmer limitation cannot be 8uoomafully pleaded egal.nat t&m any INS% than it can 

agaiart the stata %trslf." 

We thl& the fundr when eolleatsd by the County 

%iX Qolbdol’, lb0 i8 tit80 th0 OOl~~lootOP Qf BOE3rm)A 8&001 

dialMats, t8 l.iaprM8ed with a trat mid 1opld ror the btmsfit 

of th8 respeotfob district to vhleh t&y &wld be allocat%d. 

fi tom v. city 0r Balla (swxwm 630~t) 40 3. x, 

gap 7iet 0r thb“‘&$gt~~ 0r tb, mtb*ttt aab the 

6t6tU& sad OOMtitUti6asl prO+iBiOM BSferPed t0 

above, ft Is plain, we t&Ink, thst t&e prowrty and 

iundt 0r * publie s0h0018 8se had in tr82.t by th0 

aft , dio@let, OoMty, OF QtheZ' 8tat~toPy wemy, 

too UOd '?Or 3210 bOrPrflt Of %hO Mhool ehildm Of 

'Lh$ eomnunit nor dlstrlot in vhiah the properties exist, 

or to vhioh LJ 8eb001 iuad8 have bee13 allocated. We 

thwk th8se properties 6~4 fwid8 * 80 plainly and 

ommy~r8edtitha lmmtin rator. th010eal 

pub116 8&0018 Or tb6 @itJ OT dl8tmt ti$&Bithy PFI 

vlthin the proteotiw alaM 0r both th43 state and 

federal Constitutions, and that the Iagislatum is 

vlthout paver to devoote them to any oth%r purpse or 

to the un8 of miy other benefloisry or bensflaiarlerr.” 

It tlwefore rollov8 from vhat w have said abow 

that ve am of the opinion that limiitation oannot be mccessfully malntal.rmd a&ainst a right of action of oo~&n~n twhml 

dletrletr to have pnaltlss and interest oolleoted on dellnqusnt taxm illocated to the mspsotfw distriots to vhiah 
xvn. T. n. %‘rmae, psee 6 

tb s ta x i, l lloeated,aadsolongu 8OsY maa': 

fund emneously mceivlag such d*linqueat pena Yf%ib 

iote?est, tb eotlntf offiolals abrrged u&es the 8~ with 

the edoini8tmtloa of sshcol lavs ard ths eolleatioa of 

the taxes ha# t&e r ig hto t adjustths fun&s a nd reimbuzwe 

tba dl@trl.ets which have been l rrcmeousl~ dep r ivof ed the 

ssm, whether br w2wmow allooatlon or emmeous rithholUng by ?& 6ollectLw oifloials. 

1i ve have tpfsconstrued yo-'ur question an to 

llaftation, vhioh VI have UwePed u&or lo. 2 above, and 

instead yvu vlsh to knov whether or not the 88~~ rule of 

UMtatfon vould apply te ciomwn school bistrict tame 

In the oatter of collection by the State es would apply 

t.9 State and County taxes, then 0" ~RSVW to the second 

question 18 herelmfte~ stntedx 

The mleeue or extinguisbmeat o? deliriqumt tmmr 

which have beea due for a pariod of at least ten yeqw, polfor 

to the tIrf3erdwat of Art&ale III, Beotion 55 of the i?onstitutioa, Xov. 8, 193, vcll not authorfsed. Artiule 729, V. R. 

0. fIba vhloh sought to provide b period vi linitatioa agalinmt 

the ooU.eatfca of delinquent tams of school diatrlats and 

road dlstr'iots tea ye-8 or mm past due, vld laut amnded 

.+ia rgW but thin 4nandmnt, if *alid, l pp2l.m ody to seh00l 

;l&:lots and road dl8trlct8, ard not to State aad County 

. 

In the recent case ef sasi Bsseett Lumber Co. v. 

City of Xoustvn, 19 8. U. (26) l%, (Court vi Civil Ap 

Oalvcston) th+ Court held that that portion of Art. 

air, 

72 r$ 

pe2wltting a plea ot llwitation against the collection of 

School dlstrlet SM road dletrlet taxes vas uncortstitutliznal 

th a t tb a rdid e not b t that tlma l slst th 

t. 3, 8ee. 55, of the Constitution, which 

Legislatum to ZrdlSeae or extinguish delinqthnt taxes for t&e ten year8 past due, the axiiendf;ent to 

the Constltutlon being mm than a 

G 

SF BUbS!Zquf#nt ti the 

aroemtmnt to the statute, arid that e oubseqwnt aimxlmnt 

to the Comtitution 0oulQ not be invvkad J.ri aid of such pior 

ensatmnt of the Legislatwe. Thfr 0880 Lo nov pmdiag on 

appllcetion Par writ of error t.?~ the Supreme Court, vhlch hhs 

bsen grantid, and the awe har been Equml and submitted. 

. 
. 

. 

Hon. t. Y. hlmble, Pqp 7 

Tki&.pst~ Till Ilo 6oubt shortly w (sol&d by ths 

.k#elmnQvstai%l8thenl8rw, 

psantl 

plea of Lm 

dotwnimd valid statub $bat aathvrlses a 

it6tiOD -f&St dOl:qWDt l dXWl srd POti 

distrlet tads. Ia view OS ths prseent status of this 

gas0 befor. t&a supm ovurt, w VVUM not dviw tl38 appliaativa of Art. 7298, v. R. 0, b., and matters 

depsnd3.~#uj1~a lt should bo held in alwyanss until the 

Bupre~e Oourt has passed upon Um 3am Bassett Lumber 

coq3aag 0988, The Court 8aFd in this oass: 

“It is ap~llaeVs aonte9otion that t&s Legialatwo 981 vithout sbuthorlty la enact rwh bmnduant in 

1931, and that it vea not until ]Povwzbar 8, 1932, t&t 

BeoCicn 55 of APti, 3 of the Tex’ka Constitution Ii68 80 

aim&d au TV prmlt tb Legirlatuzs k authorlso swh 

plsa of Ilnritatloa. Ti the cvustitutioa torbsde tbs 

Legirlatws to autbmlss & pl.ra vi llmitatioa to a tar 

suit b a Bohvol Biahriot rt the tlma sstd aimtint 

vas mdi 6 in 1931, it rsqulres no oitstion of authority 

to support the pmposition that no subesquent grant to 

t&3 Isgislatnrs af pwer, to allov a plea of lfolitat3.m 

to a tax Suit, vould make valti ma 8Ot passed By tha 

Lsgfslatws prior kr suah gmut.” 

ii@ 

w thiak as oounty 8ehool Bow ir vithia Its 

gal rlghts in tnslstlRg UpvR th# proper alleo8t10n of 

” ellziqusnt ~naltles and taternst on somma sohool dlatriot 

taxes, oonslstent vith ths views vs have exjfreased above. 

Assistant