R-1017 

AUSWN PB. TSSXAS 

January 24,1948 

Honorable William N. Hensley 

Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County 

San Antonio, Texas Opinion No. V-485 

Re: Whether a clerical error by the 

Board of Equalization will invalidate the assessment and related questions. 

Dear Mr. Hensley: 

Your letter request relative to the above-captioned 

matter reads, in part, as follows: 

“I’have received from the Commissioners’ 

Court of Bexar County the following: 

“‘The Commissioners’ Court has heretofore passed a number of orders cancelling assessments and directing the Tax Assessor-Collector of Bexar County to cancel 

the set assessment appearing on the 1947 

tax roll by reporting it on the Form 17 list 

of errors and to reassess the property and 

to present the new assessment to the Commissioners’ Court for approval as required 

by Articles 7346 and 7347, Revised Civil Statutes. In each of sucbcases, the order recited that the assessment was invalid because of a clerical error in the Board of 

Equalization. 

“‘On November 21, 1947, several such 

orders were r.eturned to the Commissioners’ 

Court with a statement from the Hon. P. E. 

Dickinson, Tax Assessor-Collector of Bexar 

County, substantially as follows: 

““We regret,very much that we.cannot accept the order of October 29, 

1947, issued by Commissioners Court 

of Bexar County, Texas, instructing the 
Honorable William N. Hensley, Page 2 (V-485) 

Assessor-Collector to reassess property in the name of Fidelity Realty 

Company No. 45. 

“‘- It is our understanding that the 

value of the property as fixed by the 

County Commissioners sitting as a 

Board of Equalization is final, subject 

only to being set aside for fraud or 

the adoption of a fundamentally wrong 

method of a~ssessment.“’ 

“‘It is my feeling that where a clerical error is made in the Board of Equalization setting evaluations on property on the tax rolls, 

that the order of the Commissioners’ Court, 

when that fact is, brought to its attention, probably should find as a finding a fact by the Commissioners’ Court that evaluation was invalid 

because .of such clerical error. I do not believe that the law can mean that the Commissioners’ Court is restricted in its findings to 

a.finding of fraud or the adoptioarof a fundamentally wrong assessment. 

“Therefore, I request your opinion upon 

the following questions: 

“1. Is it proper for the order of the Commissioners’ Court, where such is the facts, to’ 

contain a finding that the evaluation placed by 

the Board of Equalization on the property in 

question was invalid because of a clerical error in computing such value by the Board of 

Equalization? 

“‘2. Is it necessary. that the Commissioners’ 

Court, in such case, find that the evaluation, 

and subsequent assessment, was invalid because of the adoption of a fundamentally wrong 

method of assessment? 

“‘3. Is it not sufficient that the Commissioners’ Court find that a clerical error exists 

as a basis for its order.declaring its evaluation, and subsequent assessment,, invalid? 

“4. If it is not legally sufficient for the 

Court to find a clerical error exists, then what 

specific terminology must be used in order for 
Honorable William N. Hensley. Page 3 (V-485) 

the Commissioners’ Court to set aside an 

invalid and improper evaluation made by 

the Board of Equalization? I” 

We are enclosing herewith the prior Opinions ‘J-1342, 

O-1462, O-6257, and O-7412, which set out applicable statutes relative to invalid assessments and the method piovided in having prop- ; 

erty re-assessed. 

However, from the facts stated in your letter, we are 

of the opinion that the assessments in question are valid. Clerical 

errors were made by the Equalization Board in performing its duty 

in equalizing add correcting the assessments. Assuming that the assessments were valid at the time the tax assessor submitted the list 

of assessments to the Equaliaation Board, clerical errors by the 

Board would not, in our opinion, make the assessment void. The 

Commissioners’ Court, sitting as a board of equalization, is a quasijudicial body. Ward County v. Wentz, 69 S.W. (2) 571; City of El Paso 

v. Howze, 248 S.W. 99. It is our opinion that the Commissioners’ 

Court, convened as a board of equalization, has the same authority to 

make the record of its findings a,s to valuations correctly and fully 

reflect what the court found, as a court has to corroct~ errors in the 

entry of its’ judgment by a nunc pro tune order. We must assume. as a 

baAis for this opinion that the changes in the assessment roll as or-, -’ 

dered by the Commissioners’ Court, were ordered because of clerical ) 

errors and that the’finding that an error had been made in entering its 

judgment approving or fixing a particular valuation is correct. The 

Supreme Court of Texas in Coleman v. Zapp, 151 S.W. 1040, in upholding the power of c~ourts to correct their records.by nunc pro tune entries, used the following language: 

“The judgment of a court is what the court 

pronounces. Its rendition is the judicial act by 

which the court settles and declares the decision 

of the law upon the matters at issue. Its entry is 

the ministeriel act by which an enduring evidence 

of the judicial act is affosded. 

*The failure of the minute entry to correct- 

‘ly or fully recite what the court judicially determined does not annul the act of the court, which 

remains the judgment of the court notwithstanding 

it.s imperfect record. Freeman on Judgments, 

§ 38. 

“Hence it is that from the earliest times the 

power of correcting or amending their records, by 

nunc pro tune entry, so as to faithfully recite their 

action, has been possessed and exercised by the 
Honorable William N. Hensley, Page 4 (V-485) 

courts as an inherent right, independent of any 

statute, and, in the absence of express provision, unaffected by limitation. Freeman on Judgments, % 56; Ency. Pl. 81 Prac. vol. 18, p. 459. 

Our statutes providing for the correction af 

mistakes in the record of judgments and decrees 

(articles 1356 and 1357, Sayles’ CM1 #@at.) gevem the procedure of its exercke; hu# i&ey are 

only cumulative of this inherent power of the 

courts to have their records at~all times speak 

the truth; If a court is made aware that through 

mistake or omission its records do not recite 

its judgment as actually rendered, we do not 

doubt that it is not only the right but the duty of 

the court, of its own motion and after due notice 

to the parties, to~order the proper entry. The 

nature of a judicial record, the accuracy of which 

is the peculiar concern of the court and which for 

that reason and to that extent remains within the 

court’s control, forbids that its correctness as 

an expression or evidence of judicial action should 

depend upon the inauguration of a proceeding by 

the parties; and it is therefore plain that such a’ 

proceeding only invokes an authority which the 

court may exercise of its own accord. In Xfmenes 

v. Ximenes, 43 Tex. 458, Judge Moore quoted the 

following language from the opinion of Judge 

Wheeler in Burnett v. State, 14 Tex. 456: “Every 

court has the right to judge of its own records and 

minutes, and, if it appear satisfactorily to them 

that an order was actually made at a former term 

and omitted to be entered by the clerk,‘they,may 

at any time direct such order to be entered on the 

records as of the term when it was made.“’ And 

then announced: ‘And there can be no doubt, we 

think, that this court may, at a subsequent term 

after a final judgment, if there is the proper’ pred-~ 

icate for it. correct clerical errors or mistakes, 

cure defects of form. or add such clause as may 

be necessary to carry out the judgment of the 

court, make the entry in the minutes correspond 

with and correctly express the judgment actually 

rendered, as shown by the entire record.’ In 

Whittaker v. Gee, 63 Tex. 435, it was held by 

Chief Justice Willie as follows: ‘Frequent decisions of this court have settled the right to have 

a judgment amended after the expirati,on of the 

term at which it was obtained, when, through mistake or clerical error, the record does not speak 
. 

Honorable William N. Hensley. Page 5 (V-485) 

fully or truly the judgment actually rendered in 

a cause.‘” 

Based upon the above, it is our opinion that the Cdmmissioners’ Court, sitting as a board of equalization, after due notice to the taxpayer, may by a nunc pro tune entry, correct clerical 

errors in its minutes of prior meetings so they will correctly reflect the prior action of the Board. Then it will become the tax 

collector’s duty to correct his tax rolls to conform thereto. 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners’ Court, sitting as a 

board of equalization, after due notice~to the 

taxpayer, has the authority to correct clerical 

errors in its minutes of prior meetings by a 

nunc pro tune entry, so that the minutes will 

correctly reflect the prior action of the Board 

in equalizing assessments. The tax collector 

should then correct hi,s tax rolls to eonform 

thereto. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS 

W. V. Geppert, 

Assistant 

W VG/JCP 

APPROVED : 

T ASSISTA NT 

ORNEY GENERAL