## THE ATIXBIZNICY GENERAL OF TEXAS Avs-inv. T-s 76711 March 8, 1977

The Honorable Joe Resweber Harris County Attorney Harris County Courthouse Houston, Texas Opinion No. H-950 Re: Payment of remittance of a judgment of abail bond forfeiture. DearMr. Resweber: You have requested our opinion concerning theproper payment of a judgment for remittance ofmoneys collected from the surety inabail bond forfeiture. You have asked the following questions:

1. May the County Auditor legally approve a disbursement pursuant to the judgment? 2. Fromwhich fund should such disbursement bemade? 3. Should the fees and/or commissions of the District Attorney and District Clerk, which were deducted from the forfeited bond, be adjusted on thebasis of the net amount of forfeiture after remittance? Section 12(a) of article 2372p-3,V.T.C.S., expressly provides for such judgments of remittance andwas held constitutional inRobinson v.u, 507 S.W.Zd 521 (Tex. 1974). Accordingly, ' it 1szear that a claim based upon such a judgment is-authorized by law and should be a&roved by theCounty Auditor. See also Attorney General Opinion O-1847 (1940). --

P. 3969The Honorable Joe Resweber -page 2 (H-950)

Your next question concerns the fund fromwhich the remittance should bepaid. You note that article 1628,V.T.C.S., in effect provides that all "fines and forfeitures" shall be deposited in theRoad and Bridge Fund. In addition, article 1007, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for the district attorney to receive tenper cent of all fines and forfeitures he recovers for the State or county, and for the district clerk to receive fiveper cent thereof. Of course, these officers are on a salary basis, article 3912e, section 19(d),V.T.C.S., and the fees collected are therefore deposited in theOfficers' Salary Fund. V.T.C.S. art. 3912e, S 5. In our view, the claim for remittance is ageneral obligation of the county and should be paid from theGeneral Fund. V.T.C.S. arts. 1626, 1628. Of course, the Commissioners' Court isauthorized to transfer funds from the Road and Bridge Fund to theGeneral Fund. Tex.Const., art. 8, 9 9;Attorney General Opinion H-194 (1974). We see nopurpose or authority for the removal of fees and/or commissions from theOfficers' Salary Fund, for there isan annual interchange between theGeneral Fund and the Officers' Salary Fund. If the Salary Fund is insufficient, it is required tobe supplemented from theGeneral Fund. V.T.C.S., art. 3912e, § 19(k). Furthermore, allmoneys remaining in the Salary Fund at the end of each fiscal year are transferred to theGeneral Fund. V.T.C.S. art. 3912e, S 19(m). These are the only transfers authorized with respect to theOfficers' Salary Fund, and theywould apparently make any further transfers purposeless. Accordingly, inour opinion, the fees and/or commissions of the district attorney and district clerk should not be adjusted to reflect the remittance of the fines and forfeitures fromwhich those fees and/or commissions were deducted. SUMMARY

A county auditor may legally approve a claim based upon a judgment for remittance of some or all of an amount recovered inabail bond forfeiture. The claim should bepaid from

p. 3970The Honorable Joe Resweber -page 3 (H-950)

theGeneral Fund and the contribution from the original forfeiture to the Officers' Salary Fund should not be utilized. /Irerytruly yours, 

# ~L/&2&

Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: v

C. ROBERT HEA&, Chairman Opinion Committee jwb

p. 3971