HonorableWilliam

CriminalDlstrlct Vlctorfa,Texas

Dear Sir: C. Sparks Opinion No. ~-691

Attorney Re: Questions concerning jurisdictionof justice court In cases by IndependentSchool District and City for personal property taxes, each in an amount in controversyof less than $200.00.

You have requested the Opinion of this office on the followingquestions,pertaining to the jurisdictionof suits for delinquentpersonal property taxes by an Independent SchoolDistrict and a City, acting together,when the amount in controversyin each suit Is less than $200.00,and there
are no lien foreclosuressought therein. With your request you have s'ubmltted your brief with authoritiesand copies of previous opinions issued by this office, NOS. C-757 and V-1332, in support thereof.

QuestionsPresented:

1. If a suit 1s filed by an IndependentSchool District for personalproperty taxes, the amount In controversyless than $200.00 Including taxes, penalties and Interest, the District seekingpersonal judgment only, not foreclosureof any liens, is jurisdictionfor this suit exclusive in the Justice Court?

2. Must a Justice of the Peace accept personal property tax suits when submittedfor filing by an IndependentSchool DistAet when the amount In controversy1.9 within the jurisdlctfon of his court?

-333i-HonorableWllllam C. Sparks, pag 2 (M- 691)

3. Has OpinionV-1332 been overruledby the Office of the AttorneyGeneral or is It still the holding of the AttorneyGeneral's Office that Article 7345b, V.C.S., does not apply to delinquent tax suits for the collectlonof personalproperty taxes?
4, Where the State and County do not have a lien for personalproperty taxes, are they
a necessaryparty to any delinquenttax suit brought by an IndependentSchool District for the collectionof personal property taxes?

5. Can a Justice of the Peace, as a condition ,precedentto the filing of a delinquent tax suit In his court for the collection of personal property taxes, the jurisdictional amount being within his court, require the attorney for the SchoolDistrict,who does not represent the State and County, to negative the existence of State and County personal property taxes assessed in the
name of the defendant,before he will accept jurisdiction of his court for filing of School personalproperty tax suits?

Insofar as Victoria County IS concerned, your question Number 1 Is answered In the affirmative. ArticleV, Section 19, Texas Constitution, vests In justice courts original jurisdictionIn civil matters,

where the amount In controversy two'h&&ed dollars or less, exclusiveof Is

Interest, of which exclusiveoriginal jurlsdiction Is not given to the District or County Courts;

. . .'I

However, It should be noted under ArticleV, Section 22, Constitutionof Texas, the Legislatureis empowered to grant to County Courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Justice Courts. In some counties, the Legislature has so provided, In which cases exclusive jurisdiction in the Justice Court would not exist. We find no such statute for Victoria .County.

-3332-HonorableWilliam C. Sparks,page 3 (M- 69'1)

Your questionNumber 2 Is also answered In the affirmative. reauires Ru.le 534, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, 'When a claim oi?&emand is lodged with a rfusf.ice fo6 suit,,

he shall i~ssue

forthwithcltaiion& ---.I(- This ministerialilct

by the justice of lnltlat;lng a suit Is not discretionary.

Our answer to your questionNumber 3 Is thatOpInIon No. V-1332 (I.9511

has n6t been overruledand we adhere to the holding thereof that Article 73&b, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes,does not apply to delinquent tax suits :for the coll.ection

of personalproperty taxes. Mexla IndependentSchool Dl.strlct v. City of MexlaxF Tex. 95, 133 S.W.~-(~39).

Your question Number 4 is answered In the negative. The State and County have no Interest In the subject matter of the t.ax

suit of the School District and City, of such
a nature that 1.t

Is necessary for the State and County to be parties in order for the Court to grant complete relief to the School District and City. To hold that the State and County were Indispensable as parties when such suits
were filed by the School District and the City In the county or justice courts would be equivalentto dismissal of such suits because of the lack of jurisdiction of the State'sand County8s claims. 44 Tex Jur 26. 153-156, Parties,Sets. 1.1

and 1.5,

and AttorneyGeneral-Is Opinion NO. ‘c-757 (1966).

Your questionNumber 5 ls answered S.n the r?egati.ve. Tne causes nf actl.on sued upon by the at;torn~y.collectlng the taxes fog the School Dl.strict and the City are lndependent of any t.*x cl.aLm the State or Coun~ty may have agaifist

Lhe defendant. The justl.ce of the peace has no duty o?!

authot-l.ty

to d.!.r*ect:

i:he fil.ing o:f(?l.a:l.ms

l.n any court,, even in ant;icSpation of avokl.i.np, a multLpl:Lcity of suits. :T.n

n-ltt:ers

of con~soll.dat:l.on

of Prluses

of action or joirlder~

of p:~%:l.es

the aut:ho!v:l,t;p

of t:he justl.rr?

extends only to claims 01'

actl.cns

a:l.regdy

on hl.8 dar:ke:f:.

Rules 174 and 41,,,

Texas Rules of C'l.vi:l P:rocedure. ..~ .._. .-... ..-._.."-.l_

. . -. I"-..-...- ~b..... -IHonorableWilliam C. Sparks,page 4 (M-691)

The docketingand Issuing of citation upon such suits is a mandatoryministerial duty of the justice of the peace,
The State and County are not necessaryand lndlspenaable

parties to such suits and the justice of the peace has no duty or authority to direct the.flllngof claims .inany court, his authorityas to joinder of actions and parties extending? only to suits already on his docket.

Prepared by R. L. Lattlmore AsslatantAttorney General y General of Texas

APPROVH): OPINION COMMITTEE

Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Kenneth R. Nordquist Gordon Cass Roland Allen Ronnie Carr

Meade F. Griffin Staff Legal Assistant

Alfred Walker ExecutiveAssistant

Nola White First Aselstant

-3334-