August 16, 1971
Honorable Robert S. Calvert Comptroller of Public Accounts State Finance Building Austin, Texas 78711

Dear Mr. Calvert: Opinion No. M-933 Re: Questions concerning Attorney

General’s Opinion No. M-898 .(1971), construing the Unemployment Compensation Act (Article 522113-7, sub-division (d), Vernon’s Civil Statutes. ) **Your** recent letter to this office requests an amplification ofAttorney General’s Opinion No. M-898 (1971), which construed the Unemployment Compensation Act (Article 5221b-7, subdivision (d), Vernon’s Civil Statutes), insofar as that Act related to your authority to issue a duplicate warrant, replacing alost original warrant, for unemployment compensation benefits more than one year after the date of issuance ofthe original warrant.

The following questions are posed by your letter:

“(1) May the Comptroller issue new warrants, not duplicates, to the National City Bank ofWaco, Texas, on the same facts outlined inOpinion No. M-898?

“(2) May the Comptroller issue new or duplicate warrants to the payees ofunemployment compensation benefits warrants which are presented for payment more than one year from the date of issuance ofthe original warrants, where the Legislature has made special appropriations for payment of such warrants? ” Attorney General’s Opinion No. M-898 (1971) held that sub-division (d) ofArticle 5221b-7, was applicable to both the initial payee and tothe assigns of anunemployment compensation benefits warrant, and, further, that the Article prohibited you from issuing aduplicate warrant for such benefits

-4551-Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (M-933)

more than one year after the date of issuance ofthe original’warrant.

While it is true that the National City Bank, as assignee ofthe lost unemployment compensation benefits warrants, has aclaim against the State of Texas for the amounts of such warrants, it is also true that the Bank presented such claims after the running ofthe one-year statute of limitations set forth in sub-division (d) ofArticle 522113-7.

Article 5221b-7 forbids the issuance of duplicate warrants after the running ofthe one-year statute oflimitations, but does not specifically forbid the issuance of new warrants after such period. - The second paragraph of sub-division (d) ofthat Article provides as follows:

“If, after any warrant has been issued by the Comptroller

payable to aclaimant for benefits under the provisions ofthis Act, and such warrant shall have been lost or misplaced, or if claimant for any reason fails or refuses to present said war&t for payment within twelve (12) months after the date of issuance of such warrant, such warrant shall be cancelled, and thereafter no payment shall be made by the Treasurer on such warrant, and no duplicate warrant inplace thereof shall ever be issued. ” (Emphasis added. ) It is our opinion that a reasonable construction ofthe terms, purpose, and intent of sub-division (d) ofArticle 5221b-7, aremedial statute, and of the evil sought tobe avoided by it, is that the Legislature intended that no payment, either by means of anew or by aduplicate **warrant,** should be made after the running ofthe one-year period.

Ifthe issuance of aduplicate warrant, replacing the original and the claim onwhich itwas issued, is prohibited after aone-year period, then, in our opinion, the issuance of anew warrant, replacing the original warrant and the claim onwhich itwas based, after alike one-year period is, afortiori, prohibited.

Your first question is, therefore, answered inthe negative,

-4552-

.,Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (M-933~)
We construe the one-year prohibition of sub-division (d) ofArticle 5221b-7 as applying only to payment on the original unemployment compensation benefits warrant, and not to the claim itself. Inother words, the one-year prohibition ofthat Article does not bar payment thereafter of a valid claim, provided the Legislature sees fit to approve the claim and appropriate money to pay such claim.

The Legislature, in its most recent session, saw fit to appropriate funds topay the valid claims ofpayees ofunemployment compensation benefits warrants which were presented for payment after the expiration ofthe one-year statute of limitations ofArticle 5221b-7.

As an example of the legislative intent to recognize, and pay, such claims, Section 5of House Bill 578, 62nd Legislature, R.S., 1971, provides, inpart, as follows:

“Sec. 5. The following amounts are hereby appropriated out ofthe Unemployment Compensation Benefit Account Fund #937 _____-________-____________________

“To pay W. D. Collard, 4145 Patricia Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76117, for payment ofWarrant #HO40840 on which the Statute of Limitations prohibits payment -------

____________ 24.00. . .‘I Inanswer toyour second question, you are advised that you may
‘issue a new warrant tothe payee6 or assigns ofunemployment compensation benefits warrants, presented for payment after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations, inthe event their claims against the State have been approved by the Legislature, and inthe event the Legislature specifically appropriates funds to pay such warrants. SUMMARY (1) Pursuant to sub-division (d) of Article 522113-7, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, the Comptroller may issue neither anew nor aduplicate warrant to pay the payees or assigns of anoriginal unemployment compensation benefits warrant, when such warrant is presented for payment more than one year after the date ,ofits issuance.

-4553-Honorable Robert S. ~Calvert, page 4 ,~, (M-933)
(2) The one-year statute oflimitations contained in Article 5221b-7 only applies ‘toprohibit the Comptroller from paying onthe original warrant, after the running ofthe statute. The statute of limitatians does not bar later payment of a valid claim.

(3) Claims on such warrants, presented after the running ofthe one-year statute oflimitations, may be paid by the Comptroller, by means ofthe issuance of anew warrant, provided such claims are valid, and provided further that the Legislature has specifically appropriated funds to pay such claims.

eneral of Texas Prepared by Austin Bray Assistant Attorney ~General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Michael Stork Joseph Sharpley Ivan Williams John Banks MEADE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant -4554-