OFFlCE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Dm VI. Jaokaon 

Mt.triat Attorney 

Houston, Texas 

, 1942, reque8tlng the opinstated question' reeds In 

II. L. Washburn, oounty 

1, or Artlole 3926, Vernon's 

Statutea, provldee that the 

all receive a oomlssion or 

one per oent ot the acrtuel oash 

reoelpte or eqih exeoator, administrator, or 

guardl,en, upon, thcl approval .of exhibits and 

gznrptk gt;p~a~aytg~ ;nf gm&idpordinary adminimtratlon, u&e this rate or ooppl 

miaaion apgl.y upon the acrtual oaab reoelpts or 
Honorable Dan W. Jaok80~1, %a 2 

the adPiiei8trator, au1 or whloh oaah 18 aommunity PZVpWty, Or OBiy UpOn OBO-hsllr Or 8Uah 

oath reoeipts as repreeantihg tha interest of 

the deoeUeot 7 

“‘1 have bsrore me at this time an estate 

In whuhioh the oash reusipts represent sommunjty property !~~lng arisen rrom income derived 

rrom oommunlty roper@ ilurlng the pendenoy 

0r the l etatf5, P ram thm sale or 0omamhIty pruferry, rents on oommunlty property and lib 

The ease Is as admlnletratfor with the 

will &~~sxwi, and all 0r the property or the 

deoeatm% was ulllod to the aurvlvlng spousa.* 

“1 have dlmoovered no ease invoJ+lng this prsala0 set or r8ot0. Prom the inv8sttgations 1 have 

made 1 have reached the tentative aonoluslon, berswith subeittsd for your consideration, that th6 aomPiiaiaSiO~t3 Or the cOU&y Judge IW3t ba OSAOUbt@3e Up&i 

the entire Ossh reotived rrom the ml1 sonmunity 

interest inoludlq the one-hair illttW8St 0r the Burvirlng wire. 

“1 base t&Is oonsluslon on the wall settled 

rule that the adminietrator or tha deoeased husband, 

even under a will, has the erolusive rI&t to adninister the entire aoamunlty property and not j\zet 

a portion of it, and that ror purposes 0r admix&stration the entlrs ammnity interest Is regarded 

ee balougihg eutlrsly to the estate of the husband. 

Lovejoy vs. Coohrell, Sea. A, 63 S. :?. (26) 1011. 

Slnoe the entire uomtunity estate Is aubdeot to adninistratlon by the Probate Court It follows that 

the county Judqe is liable on h-is 0rri0tii bohd r0r 

the proger adnbistratlon of the entire aommunlty 

interest by the administrator of the deoeaeeU h?lsband, and it, would therefore be fair to aliow him 

his comolfsalons or oompensation on the full reoelpt8 

rro~l the ootmunlty eatata and not fro2 half 0f the 

reoeipta only. 

" 

. . . .* 

Arti0l.e 392k; Vernoots Annotated Ci+il siXtut 

reads in ,7art as r0mms: 
lienorable J.& W. JaOkm& -0 3 

peroent apon the aotual sash reooiptr oi eaoh exeoutor, admlnlstrator or guardian, up&~ the approval 

0r the exhibita ana the rinal 8ettmnent or the aocount or euoh exaoutor, administrator or guardlsn, 

but no more than one suoh oomalsslon ohall be oharged 

on any aooount reoelvea by any suoh exeoutor, admlnistrator or guardIan.* 

Your uaetlon involvea the propoaltion whether or 

not the county 1 udgs la entitled to the com&wlon allowed 

by Article 3926, Veraton’@ Annotate& Qivll Statutes to be oaloulated~ on the oash.moalved by the administrator or aborinlntrstrlx nhloh is aomiwn%ty property or only upon OBe-ho3r 0r 

SUOh Oash reoelpts as repre+mtlng the interest sf the dewdent in oases of admltrfstirat~on wlth the all1 annexed and in 

oases or ordinary ebmlnlstratlon. 

The terat *reaelptsF as used in the statute does not 

embraoe cash on d.epo&it.4in &u&s at the time of the death of 

the tsatator. (Tcir.,J~. 06l. 25, p. 260; Gocdwln v. Dow-, 

280 8. w. 512; Y!ilZis vi !Xarvep, 26 5. pi. (2d) 288). 

It is also well established that the Maaty Sudge 

is not entitled to the etatutory fee where thee&ate. was administered by an inbependent exeoutor or b 

vivor . Article 3627, Vernon*s Annotated 8 ivfi * Oompunity 3tatutes, *- 

provldesr 

Vhen a husband or wire shall die leaving any 

consaon property, the aurvlvor my, at any time arter letters teetaueutary or of adniniatration have 

been granted, and aq inventory, appraisement and 

list or 01ain.a or the estate hare beeh returned, 

n&e epplloation In writing to the oourt whlah granted suoh letters ror a pertition or such oommon property, whioh applloation shal.l be acted upon at 

aomw regulti term of the court.” 

Unless there is a partition of the ooqnoa or ooamnlty property as authorleed by Article 3627, supra, we are 

- of the opinfofi that the aounty judge would be entitled to him 

comnii~sion on all or the cash ,reoeIpts received by the adrainistrator or the administratrlr notwithstanding the iaot that 

such rooelpts are oom?nunitg property. Exoept, as above stated, 

cash 05 deposit in baahe at the tine 0r the death 0r tbm teatator. It is our opinion that the judge rotid be entitled to 
Honorable Den n. Jaokeoti, Page 4 

the oamlwions an above mentioned la both oaaos st adsinlrtratlon r&th the will annexed and in @aso of ordinary admlnistratlon. 

m OgMeotion with the IongoIng we want to point 

out that the obunty Judge would not be entitled to reoeivo 

euoh oormulasions ‘or fee@ poraonally but under the OfflOers’ 

Salary Law he muat oolloot the same and deposit them in the 

Offloorr’ Salary Fund. 

We hero been unable to find any oaae where the quoationa involved In this opinion have been deoldod by the appollate oourte. Howater, air above dtated, It 1.r our opinion that 

the oounty judge la ontltled to the ooslpiadon on all the Oath 

noelpt8 reoelved by the admlnl&ntor or admlnl@t~trlx L~L 

both oaoee mentioned ln yqur inquiry unlosn there lme been a 

partition of' suoh common or o6rPwrnlty property a8 authorisod 

by Artlelo 3627. 

Trustlng that the forogolng fully &newer0 your la 

qulry, we are 

Y0urII 7ery truly 

ATTOBNBY QJClQRAL OF TEXAS