The Attorney General of Texas 

October 10, 1979 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable D. R. “Tom” Uher 

Chairman, House State Affairs 

Committee 

P. 0. Box 2910 

A&in, Texas 78769 

Opinion No. m-67 

Re: Compensation of an attorney 

who has contracted to collect 

delinquent taxes on behalf of 

Victoria County. 

DearRepreserita’flve‘Uner: 

You ask two questions about the compensation of a private attorney 

who has contracted with Victoria County to collect delinquent taxes. Under 

the contract, which you have submitted to us, the county, joined by the 

state, employed the attorney to aid local officers in collecting delinquent 

state and county ad valorem taxes. See V.T.C.S. art. 7335. It provides 

compensation of fifteen percent of theamount collected of all dginquent 

taxes, penaIty and interest subject to the contract See V.T.C.S. art. 7335a. 

In performing hi4 duties under the contract, the attoney filed a motion to 

compel answers to interrogatories, which the court granted, ordering the 

defendant to pay reasonable attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. 

You first ask whether the collection of attorney’s fees by the private 

attorney from individual defendants violates the contract. There is 

statutory authority for the award of attorney’s fees under these 

circumstances See V.T.C.S. art. 7345b, SS; Tex. Civ. Proc. R. 168. The 

question is whetherthe attorney may receive these fees in addition to the 

fifteen percent compensation awarded under the contract. Paragraph V of 

the contract provides in part: 

. . . where it is necessary to file suit for the enforced 

collection of delinquent taxes on real property, 

Second Party [the attorney] shall have the authority 

to procure on behalf of First Party Ithe state and 

County] the necessary additional data and information 

as to the name, identity and location of necessary 

Parties and in the procuring of necessary legal 

descriptions of the property may sue in the name of 

First party for the recovery of the actual cost of this 

information as Court Costs, as authorized by Article 

P. 206 
Honorable D. R. “Tom” Uher - Page Two NJ-67 1 

7345B, Section 8, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes. It is agreed 

and understood that First Party will not be liable for any of the 

above mentioned cost. 

Paragraph Vll provides in part: 

It is further agreed and understood that Second Party shall 

furnish, at his own expense, . . . all labor necessary to complete 

said contract including labor and expense incurred . . . in procuring 

neeemary legal descriptions of the property as provided in 

Paragraph V in all cases where such expenses are not collected as 

costs against the defendant or defendants ln the tax suit, but in no 

event shall such cost be paid to Second Party, either directly or 

indirectly. . . . 

Finally, paragraph XIII provides that the Second Party shall not “benefit directly or 

indirectly from the performance of this contract except to the extent of compensation 

provided in Paragraph VIII of this contract.” 

Where provisions of the same contract are in conflict, the courts will construe the 

contract to give effect to all provisions if possible. City of Midland v. Wailer, 430 S.W.2d 

473 (Tex. 1968). In our opinion, the quoted contract provisions mean that the state and 

county may recover attorney fees in connection with compelling answers to 

interrogatories, but these fees may not be paid to the attorney over and above the 

compensation provided in paragraph VIII of the contract Paragraph V permits suit in the 

name of the state and county to collect attorney fees; thus, these political entities 

actually receive the award. Paragraph VII specifies that costs collected against 

defendants are not to be paid to the attorney, while paragraph XIII limits the attorney’s 

compensation to that provided in paragraph VRl. Thus, the attorney’s fees are to be paid 

over to the plaintiff state and county, and not to the attorney employed under the 

contract in question. 

you next ask whether the collection from individual defendants of attorney’s fees 

for motions to compel interrogatories violates articles 7335 and 7335a, V.T.C.S. Article 

7335 authorizes the commissioners court to contract with a private attorney to enforce 

the collection of any delinquent state and county taxes for a percent of the taxes, penalty 

and interest actually collected. Article 7335a provides that no contract may be made by 

the commissioners court in connection with delinquent taxes “where the compensation 

under such contract is more than fifteen percent of the amount collected.” The contract 

in question limits comeensation to fifteen oercent of the amount collected. and as we 

have construed the contract, the attorney’s fees are not paid to the attorney in addition to 

the compensation. Thus, the attorney receives no more than the compensation authorized 

by article 7335a, V.T.C.S. 

SUMMARY 

Under a contract to assist Victoria County in collection of 

delinquent taxes a private attorney may not receive attorney’s fees 

p. 207 
Honorable D. R. “Tom” Uher - Page Three (~w-67 1 

for motions to compel answers to interrogatories in addition to the 

stated compensation. The compensation provision of the contract 

is consistent with articles 7335 and 7335a. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. PAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Susan Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Jim Allison 

David B. Brooks 

Walter Davis 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

William G Reid 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 208