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 of Attorney 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 a lost original warrant, for unemployment 

compensation benefits more than one year after the date of issuance of the 

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 in Opinion No. M-898? 

“(2) May the Comptroller issue new or duplicate 

warrants to the payees of unemployment compensation 

benefits warrants which are presented for payment more 

than one year from the date of issuance of the 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) of Article 5221b-7, was applicable to both the initial payee and to the assigns of an unemployment compensation benefits warrant, and, further, that 

the Article prohibited you from issuing a duplicate warrant for such benefits 

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

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

While it is true that the National City Bank, as assignee of the lost 

unemployment compensation benefits warrants, has a claim against the State 

of Texas for the amounts of such warrants, it is also true that the Bank presented such claims after the running of the one-year statute of limitations 

set forth in sub-division (d) of Article 522113-7. 

Article 5221b-7 forbids the issuance of duplicate warrants after the 

running of the one-year statute of limitations, but does not specifically forbid the issuance of new warrants after such period. 

- 

The second paragraph of sub-division (d) of that Article provides as 

follows: 

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

payable to a claimant for benefits under the provisions of this 

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 in place thereof shall ever be issued. ” (Emphasis added. ) 

It is our opinion that a reasonable construction of the terms, purpose, 

and intent of sub-division (d) of Article 5221b-7, a remedial statute, and of 

the evil sought to be avoided by it, is that the Legislature intended that no 

payment, either by means of a new or by a duplicate warrant, should be made 

after the running of the one-year period. 

If the issuance of a duplicate warrant, replacing the original and the 

claim on which it was issued, is prohibited after a one-year period, then, in 

our opinion, the issuance of a new warrant, replacing the original warrant 

and the claim on which it was based, after a like one-year period is, a fortiori, prohibited. 

Your first question is, therefore, answered in the negative, 

-4552- 

., 
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (M-933~) 

We construe the one-year prohibition of sub-division (d) of Article 

5221b-7 as applying only to payment on the original unemployment compensation benefits warrant, and not to the claim itself. In other words, the 

one-year prohibition of that 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 to pay the valid claims of payees of unemployment compensation benefits warrants which were presented for payment after the expiration of the 

one-year statute of limitations of Article 5221b-7. 

As an example of the legislative intent to recognize, and pay, such 

claims, Section 5 of House Bill 578, 62nd Legislature, R. S., 1971, provides, in part, as follows: 

“Sec. 5. The following amounts are hereby appropriated out of the Unemployment Compensation Benefit 

Account Fund #937 _____-________-____________________ 

“To pay W. D. Collard, 4145 Patricia Street, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76117, for payment of Warrant #HO40840 on 

which the Statute of Limitations prohibits payment ------- 

____________ 24.00. . .‘I 

In answer to your second question, you are advised that you may 

‘issue a new warrant to the payee6 or assigns of unemployment compensation benefits warrants, presented for payment after the expiration of the 

one-year statute of limitations, in the event their claims against the State 

have been approved by the Legislature, and in the 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 

a new nor a duplicate warrant to pay the payees or assigns 

of an original unemployment compensation benefits warrant, 

when such warrant is presented for payment more than one 

year after the date ,of its issuance. 

-4553- 
Honorable Robert S. ~Calvert, page 4 ,~, (M-933) 

(2) The one-year statute of limitations contained in 

Article 5221b-7 only applies ‘to prohibit the Comptroller from 

paying on the original warrant, after the running of the statute. 

The statute of limitatians does not bar later payment of a 

valid claim. 

(3) Claims on such warrants, presented after the 

running of the one-year statute of limitations, may be paid 

by the Comptroller, by means of the issuance of a new 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-