OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF TEX*S 

JOHN CORNYN 

September 1, 1999 

Ms. Susan A. Spataro, C.P.A., C.M.A. 

Travis County Auditor 

P.O. Box 1748 

Austin, Texas 78767 

Opinion No. JC-0102 

Re: Whether the county clerk has a duty to 

collect reimbursements for mental health services 

proceeding costs paid by a county that is not 

responsible for those costs (RQ-1206) 

Dear Ms. Spataro: 

Under section 571.018 of the Health and Safety Code, either the county that initiates 

emergency detention procedures or, if no such procedures are initiated, the county that accepts an 

application for court-ordered mental health services, issues an order for protective custody, or issues 

an order for temporary mental health services is generally required to pay the cost of mental health 

services proceedings. You ask whether the county clerk has a duty to collect reimbursements for 

costs actually paid by a county that is not responsible for those costs under the statute. Because no 

statutory provision imposes that duty, we conclude that the county clerk does not have a statutory 

duty to collect the reimbursements, but that the commissioners court may delegate that responsibility 

to an appropriate county official. 

You inform us of the following facts giving rise to your request: The Austin State Hospital, 

located in Travis County, serves an area comprising thirty-six counties. Travis County provides 

resources to the other counties within this area by conducting hearings or proceedings for individuals 

for whom the other counties are financially responsible. Thus, for each “non-Travis County 

application” for involuntary mental health services heard by Travis County Probate Court No. 1, 

Travis County pays the required application fee and other costs such as attorney fees, physician 

examination fees, compensation of corn--appointed personnel, transportation expenses, and 

prosecutor fees. Until 1998, the Travis County Clerk would seek reimbursement for the Travis 

County paid costs by sending a bill of costs to the responsible counties. But in 1998, the Travis 

County Clerk discontinued this practice believing that she has no duty to seek these costs. See Letter 

from Ms. Susan A. Spataro, C.P.A., C.M.A., Travis County Auditor, to Honorable Dan Morales, 

Texas Attorney General (Sept. 29, 1998) (on tile with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter “Request 

Letter”]. 

Section 571.018 of the Health and Safety Code deals with the allocation and collection of 

the costs of all hearing or proceedings related to mental health services. See TEX. HEALTH&SAFETY 

CODE ANN. § 571.018 (Vernon Supp. 1999). Under the statute, these costs include attorney fees, 
Ms. Susan A. Spataro, C.P.A., C.M.A. - Page 2 (X-0102) 

physician examination fees, compensation for court-appointed personnel, certain transportation 

expenses, judges’ salary supplements and costs, and prosecutor fees. Id. § 57 1.018(c). They are to 

be paid by (1) the county that initiates emergency detention procedures under subchapter A 

(apprehension of person by a peace officer) or B (judge’s or magistrate’s order for emergency 

apprehension and detention) of chapter 573 or (2), if no emergency detention procedures are 

initiated, the county that accepts an application for court-ordered mental health services, issues an 

order for protective custody, or issues an order for temporary mental health services. Id. 

5 571.018(a)(l), (2). The county responsible for the initial costs of a proceeding as set out above, 

is responsible for all subsequent proceeding costs for the person who is the subject of these 

proceedings. Id. 5 571.018(b).’ Apatient’s county ofresidence, however, must pay court-approved 

expenses incurred for psychiatric evaluation and expert testimony if ordered by the court under 

section 574.010. Id. § 571.018(f). Section 574.010 authorizes the court to order an independent 

psychiatric evaluation of the proposed patient by a psychiatrist chosen by, and who may testify for, 

the patient; and to order the patient’s county of residence to pay for court-approved expenses for 

expert testimony ifthe court determines that the proposed patient is indigent. Id. 5 574.010 (Vernon 

1992). 

A county that pays the mental health services proceeding costs as provided above “is entitled 

to reimbursement for costs actually paid by the county” from “the patient” or “a person or estate 

liable for the patient’s support in a department[al] mental health facility.” Id. 5 571 .018(d) (Vernon 

Supp. 1999). The county may not require a person other than the patient to pay any hearing or 

proceeding costs, including tiling fees or other court costs imposed by other law, unless it determines 

that the costs relate to private mental hospital services or the person charged with the costs is indeed 

a person or estate liable for the patient’s support. Id. 5 571.018(i). 

You do not ask about collection of reimbursement for costs paid by a responsible county 

from the patient or a person or estate liable for the patient’s support. Rather, you ask about 

collection of reimbursement from a county that is responsible for the costs by a county not 

responsible for those costs that, nevertheless, pays them. See Request Letter, at l-2. Section 

571.018 does not expressly authorize a nonresponsible county to pay for the mental health services 

proceeding costs or entitle that county to reimbursements for the costs paid from the responsible 

county. See id. $5 571.003(16), (17) (Vernon 1992); 571.018(a)(1)-(2), (f) (Vernon Supp. 1999). 

But because you ask only about the county clerk’s duty to collect the reimbursement, we assume, 

for the purpose of this opinion, that there is a legal basis for a county that is not responsible for 

mental health services proceeding costs under section 571.018 to pay those costs and that entitles 

the nonresponsible county to reimbursements for the costs paid from the responsible county. 

As you note, section 57 1 .018 does not address how reimbursements are to be collected. Nor 

have we found any other provision that does. More importantly for the purpose of the question 

‘Senate Bill 539, enacted by the Seventy-sixth Legislature and effective September 1, 1999, amends section 

571.018(b) to provide that “[t]he cmts shall be billed by the clerk of the court conducting the hearings.” See Act of 

May 28, 1999,76th Leg., R.S., S.B. 539,§ 1 (to be codified at TEX. HEALTII & SAFETY CODE ANN. $ 571.018(b)). 
Ms. Susan A. Spataro, C.P.A., C.M.A. - Page 3 (X-0102) 

presented, neither section 571.018 nor any other provision that we have found requires the county 

clerk to collect the reimbursement to which the county may be entitled. Accordingly, no statute 

imposes that duty on the county clerk. Therefore, we conclude that the county clerk does not have 

a statutory duty to collect reimbursements to which a county may be entitled for mental health 

services proceeding costs actually paid by the county. 

Additionally, the reimbursements are not “court costs,” which the county clerk as clerk of 

the probate court may otherwise have a duty to collect from the responsible county. See TEX. GOV'T 

CODE ANN. $5 25.00264 (Vernon Supp. 1999) (county clerk as clerk ofprobate court, must “perform 

the duties and responsibilities” of that office); 25.0030 (same); Hammonds v. Hammonds, 313 

S.W.2d 603,605 (Tex. 1958) (collection of court costs is ministerial act of court clerk); Tex. Att’y 

Gen. Op. No. H-1097 (1977) at 3 (county clerk has certain duties with respect to collecting certain 

fees as court costs).’ Based on the plain language of section 571.018, the reimbursement amount at 

issue is distinct from the mental health services proceeding costs to which it relates. See 

Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77,80 (Tex. 1997) (if statutory language 

is clear and unambiguous, court must give statute its common everyday meaning). 

Under section 571.018, “the costs for a hearing or proceeding . . shall be paid by” the 

responsible county. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. 5 571.018(a), (b) (Vernon Supp. 1999). 

The costs are owed to the court or other persons for expenses and services related to the mental 

health proceedings. Id. § 571.018(c); see also Westech Eng’g, Inc. Y. Clear-water Constructors, 835 

S.W.2d 190, 206 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, no writ) (“costs” usually refer to fees and charges 

required by law to be paid to the courts or some of their officers). And more significantly, they are 

the obligations of the responsible county. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. 9 571.018(a), (b) 

(Vernon Supp. 1999); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-1234 (1990) at 4 (statute provides that 

county to bear cost of mental health proceedings). The costs are collected, and that obligation 

satisfied, when the responsible county pays them. Thereafter, no court costs remain outstanding for 

the clerk of the court to collect. Cf: TEX. R. CIV. P. 129; Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. H-1097 (1977) 

at 3. 

It is only when the mental health services proceeding costs are paid that the county “is 

entitled to reimbursement for costs actually paid by the county” under section 571.018. TEX. 

HEALTH& SAFETY CODE ANN. 5 571.018(d) (Vernon Supp. 1999) (emphasis added). This amount 

is owed to the county, rather than the court or third persons and is the obligation of the patient or 

person or estate liable for the patient. Id. Thus, the reimbursement obligation by definition follows 

payment of the court costs and is a separate obligation from the obligation to pay the court costs. 

Accordingly, although the county clerk as clerk of the probate court may have a duty to collect the 

mental health services proceeding costs as court costs, that officer has no duty to collect the 

reimbursements to which a county may be entitled after having paid those costs. 
Ms. Susan A. Spataro, C.P.A., C.M.A. - Page 4 (JC-0102) 

In sum, in the situation you ask about, the reimbursement obligation is owed by the 

responsible counties to Travis County. As you inform us, although Travis County is not responsible 

for the court costs, it pays them on behalf of the responsible counties. Irrespective ofwhich county 

pays those costs, they have been paid. No costs remain outstanding for the county clerk as clerk of 

the Travis County Probate Court No. 1 to collect. But as the payor of those costs, Travis County is 

then due and may be entitled to seek reimbursement for the paid costs from the responsible counties. 

Consequently, the reimbursements are not amounts that the Travis County Clerk as the clerk of the 

Travis County Probate Court No. 1 is required to collect as court costs, but simply amounts owed 

to Travis County by other counties. 

Although we conclude that the county clerk has no statutory duty to seek reimbursement for 

the mental health services costs paid by Travis County, the county commissioners court may 

delegate the reimbursement collection function to an appropriate county officer. When the 

legislature does not assign a county function to a particular county offtcial, a commissioners court 

may delegate that function to an appropriate county official. In Agan, the Texas Supreme Court 

considered whether a county commissioners court exceeded its authority in transferring the payroll 

preparation responsibilities from the county treasurer to the county auditor. The court, noting that 

“[tlhe budgetary decision to transfer the payroll preparation responsibilities to the County Auditor’s 

office is a legislative function for which the Commissioners Court receives broad discretion[,]” 

concluded that the commissioners court did not exceed its authority. Agan, 940 S.W.2d at 81. The 

court stated: “Because the Legislature has not assigned payroll preparation responsibilities, the 

Commissioners Court acting in its legislative capacity may delegate the responsibilities to an 

appropriate county official.” Id. The court also concluded that the county auditor is an appropriate 

county official because that officer has statutory authority to perform the clerical functions 

associated with payroll functions. Id. But the court also noted that another statute, referencing 

“county officer” authorized by the commissioners court to administer payroll deduction, suggests 

that anyone the commissioners court authorizes would have the authority to administer the payroll. 

Id. 

The legislature has not assigned to any county official the responsibility to collect the 

reimbursement for mental health services proceeding costs to which a county is entitled under 

section 571.018 of the Health and Safety Code. We believe the delegation of that responsibility is 

a legislative function of the commissioners court similar to the delegation of the payroll preparation 

responsibilities at issue in Agan. Accordingly, the commissioners court acting in its legislative 

capacity may delegate that responsibility to an appropriate county official. Agan, 940 S.W.2d at 8 1. 

And it is for the commissioners court in the first instance to determine who is the appropriate county 

official, subject to judicial review. Id. 

In short, because no statutory provision imposes that duty, we conclude that the county clerk 

does not have a statutory duty to collect the reimbursements to which a county may be entitled for 

mental health services proceeding costs actually paid by the county. The reimbursement amounts 

are not court costs that the county clerk as clerk of the probate court may otherwise have a duty to 
Ms. Susan A. Spataro, C.P.A., C.M.A. - Page 5 (K-0102) 

collect. But the commissioners court may delegate the reimbursement collection responsibility to 

an appropriate county official. 

SUMMARY 

The county clerk does not have a statutory duty to collect the 

reimbursements to which a county may be entitled for mental health 

services proceeding costs actually paid by the county, but the 

commissioners court may delegate that responsibility to an 

appropriate county official. 

Yo s very truly 4 c CLJOI!N CORNYN 

Attorney General of Texas 

ANDY TAYLOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

CLARK KENT ERVIN 

Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel 

ELIZABETH ROBINSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Sheela Rai 

Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee