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 a bail 

bond forfeiture. 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the proper 

payment of a judgment for remittance of moneys collected 

from the surety in a bail bond forfeiture. You have asked 

the following questions: 

1. May the County Auditor legally approve 

a disbursement pursuant to the judgment? 

2. From which fund should such disbursement 

be made? 

3. Should the fees and/or commissions of 

the District Attorney and District Clerk, which 

were deducted from the forfeited bond, be 

adjusted on the basis 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 and was held 

constitutional in Robinson v. u, 507 S.W.Zd 521 (Tex. 

1974). Accordingly, it ' 1s zear that a claim based upon 

such a judgment is-authorized by law and should be a&roved 

by the County Auditor. See also Attorney General Opinion 

O-1847 (1940). 

-- 

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

Your next question concerns the fund from which the 

remittance should be paid. You note that article 1628, V.T.C.S., 

in effect provides that all "fines and forfeitures" shall 

be deposited in the Road and Bridge Fund. In addition, 

article 1007, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for 

the district attorney to receive ten per cent of all fines 

and forfeitures he recovers for the State or county, and for 

the district clerk to receive five per 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 the Officers' Salary Fund. V.T.C.S. art. 

3912e, S 5. 

In our view, the claim for remittance is a general 

obligation of the county and should be paid from the General 

Fund. V.T.C.S. arts. 1626, 1628. Of course, the Commissioners' 

Court is authorized to transfer funds from the Road and 

Bridge Fund to the General Fund. Tex . Const., art. 8, 

9 9; Attorney General Opinion H-194 (1974). 

We see no purpose or authority for the removal of fees 

and/or commissions from the Officers' Salary Fund, for there 

is an annual interchange between the General Fund and the 

Officers' Salary Fund. If the Salary Fund is insufficient, 

it is required to be supplemented from the General Fund. 

V.T.C.S., art. 3912e, § 19(k). Furthermore, all moneys 

remaining in the Salary Fund at the end of each fiscal 

year are transferred to the General Fund. V.T.C.S. art. 

3912e, S 19(m). These are the only transfers authorized 

with respect to the Officers' Salary Fund, and they would 

apparently make any further transfers purposeless. 

Accordingly, in our 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 from which 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 in a bail bond 

forfeiture. The claim should be paid from 

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

the General Fund and the contribution from 

the original forfeiture to the Officers' 

Salary Fund should not be utilized. 

/Irery truly yours, 

~L/&2& 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: v 

C. ROBERT HEA&, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3971