Honorable Tom A. Craven 

County Auditor 

McLennan County 

Waco, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-4412 

Re: .Whether school district 

may use excess of,maintenance tax over 50#,on 

the $100.00 valuation 

for payment of debts 

created in prior years 

We have .received your letter of recent date 

which we quote in part as follows: 

"In order to qualify for State Rural 

~' Aid, it.18 necessary for fifty cents:of the 

Rural:Maintenance Tax of a school to be used in 

caring for the rural aid needs of such school. 

Rulings from your department indicate that any 

maintenanoe tax levied by a school over and above 

this required fifty cents may be used for any 

legal purposes. 

'"The County Superintendent of McLennan 

County is, I think, using a too liberal interpretation of the 'term *legal purpose* as a basis 

for approving certain common school d~istrict 

expenditures. My contention is that current 

local maintenance tax revenues are not eligible 

for the payment of debts incurred.during prior 

years until the necessary expenses for the 

current year are satisfied. The local County 

Superintendent .is paying out of currentlocal 

maintenance taxi revenues; and contends he is legally ~justified in doing sr.,~ debts incurred in 

prior years; which were,in excess of prior year 

budgets, to the exclusion of necessary current 

expenses~and, in some instances, when funds 

are not even available to pay teacherst salaries 

for the current gear." 
. _. . . .- 

r?, 

Honorable Tom A. Craven, page 2, O-4412 

We quote from Sec. 2 of the Current Rural Aid Appropriation Bill (Acts 47th Leg., ch. 549): 

,I . . . .After the indebtedness in these 

funds; if any, has been retired the income from 

thils maintenance tax in excess of the required 

fifty cents (504) maintenance tax may be used at 

the discretion of the local school authorities 

of the district for any lawful school purpose." 

Your question resolves itself into the proposition 

whether that part of the maintenanoe tax levy of a school 

district which is in excess of fifty cents on the $100.00 

valuation may be used to pay obligations of prior years. 

Recently this department rendered Opinion No. 

O-4257 dealing with the payment of debts of a school distriot of one year with the revenues of a subsequent year. 

We quote from that opinion as follows: 

” 

. . . This department has consistently held 

that debts oreated by a schooldistriat in a 

certain year whioh create a defioiency inthe 

school fund for that year are in violation of 

law and create no olaim aga~inst the district. 

In other words., the tnustees of a school district 

are not authorized to create a debt payable 

outof the revenues of~the distriot ,of a subse-. 

quent year. Opinions No. o-4001, No. O-2231; 

Collier v..Peaoook, 54 S.W. 1025; Templeman 

Common School District v. Boyd B. Head Company 

101 S.Y. (2d) 352; First National Bank of Athens 

V. Murchison Independent School Dist., 114 S.W. 

(2d) 382; Rarlingen Independent School Mst. 

v. C.H. Page & Bro. 48 S.W. (2d) 983. 

n 

. . . . 

i, 

. 

greater 

hand or _ - 

. . .Debts may not beg contracted 

than the amount oft available funds on 

that may be reasonably enticipated for that 

school year. A debt created in excess of such 

amount is void and constitutes no claim against 

the district. Obligations ,.expressly payable out 

of funds accruing to the ,district in a~subsequent 

scholastic year may not validly be created by 

the trustees of a.school district; such obligations are void and create~no liability whatsoever 

, 
. . -- 

q y?l 

Honorable Tom A. Craven, page 3, O-4412 

on the part of the district. If in a previous 

year a debt was validly created in reasonable 

antioipation of revenues to be collected for that 

year, but the fund actually realized was insufficient 

to discharge the same, such debt may be paid from 

the delinquent taxes of such previous year or 

years prior thereto. Such a debt cannot be paid 

from the revenues of a subsequent year, at least 

unless there is an actual surplus in the fund 

after the discharge of all the obligations of such 

subsequent year; however, as there Is no such 

surplus in the fund of the school district involved, it is not necessary for us to pass upon 

this point, and we express no opinion thereon." 

We are of the opinion that the cases cited in 

minion No. O-4257 are applicable to a school distriot 

whether or not it levies more than a fifty cent 

maintenance tax, that the same limitations are present 

with respect to the funds of the district realized from a 

.maintenance tax of more than fifty cents, and that the 

principles announced in Opinion No. O-4257 are the~refore, 

applicable to the subject matter of your inquiry. It 

follows that an expenditure of school funds in violation 

of such principles would not be for a lawful purpose. 

We enclose a copy of Opinion No. O-4257 for your consideration. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

s/ George W. Sparks 

Approved Feb. 24, 1942 m George W. Sparks 

Assistant 

s/ Grover Sellers 

First Assistant' 

Attorney General 

Approved Opinion Committee 

By BWB, Chairman 

GWS:ff/cg