Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF - AU6TlN "I:$you Sind a conflict.inthb:Ebov~'nsied opinions; the%,'please' advise thi!c'd&@&sent what is the eorrecc laew .;In Opinion,No. Q-217, thie departsymtwas selced the Pollo%iag Ql6~6tiOIXt Honorable George H. Shepp6r4, Page 2 wQnedUsm 61 Gould 66i.daontraotor eon- time to receive 8CNQUi6siOns on colleotionr Qade by Tax Assessor-Oollector after December 31, 193k??- (Note! In this oaae Deeember 31, 1938, ~6s the terminatingdate of the contract). The answer to thi6 question war given a8 follou6r 3 War ulmrer to UT 6ixth &6tisn 16 that the contractort"the tax afi8ormey)could not continue to reoelte commi66ion6'onael- Aaseaser-tb~ectar prior to Deaember 91, 1938.' Qpbhim Wunber @+237A ia a ~ea?m+ideratlen af Opinion Number'O-237 ar+dappwma the 6bon'me66Uagr In Oplniim Piunberdtf7A the following lmguege 6pp66$tii to m&e plain our po6i- daaire to 6tat.e ial6 been recaM.tiered; ;k$ we deem it to be oorrect md adhere to 2 Opinion No,, O-237 was written in Nety, 1939, md Opinfon No, *237A .tn November, 1943. In &rtth, i by this departmenti request pertknent to The tti,attornegfiled suit dtins; the term of the contraat, sesured a 'Judgmenton e&d ``16 in the trial aonrt with&n six menthe after,the termin6blonof the 6on- traot, and in the varioue fowalosure sale6 the property wae purehased by Me State, The queetion presentedwa8 whether OF not bha delinquentf&x attorney wo\ildbe entithd fo ael.lectthe 6ersM.esi6nsin the event;of reeale tide aPCer the 6ix msnthe' per+ Nonoreble Oeorge K, Shrpperd, P6g, 3 The answer given to the above inquiry in Opinion ho. O-6&3!+was: Wnen the delinquenttnx attorney has filed suit during the term of the contract and seoureS a judgment on aaid suit in the trial court with- in six months from the terminationdate of the, contract we think that said attorney ban l6tmb- 116hed hi6 intere6t in the prdaeeds bf aaid $&d&z- - - any,vthai mafhave been &plied om hil co+& aatlon in the form of fee6 taxed as ao8ts, under the provisionsoLc&rtiole 73354" :Emphaeiaadded) In6ofsr a8 th*se three opinions aomern celleotieu6 of oomirdasioneb delinquent tax attorneys aft&r the 6# we8 Oe!c6ewithin thab ri% months~* months* period wKen 'judgirient period the first tw6 opinions oo~fliut with Opinion Xei -34; ~Theamf’lioli in thess opinionsari6e6 frapl8 de- terx&.natlonf the period the aontre6t ie $.&ended to bq *in force; \ “First party agrees ta pay to Becoud Party as compensationfor the 66rvioee hymndor re- quir d per oeat fiat to ereeed fifteen 115) per ? orthe ascountcoL.lsoted~of all delinquent cent: &Wm a r%ading 60161~ of t&B lau~$W$e quoted above from SeeBion VIZ1 it appeaF6 &ear that the ~daL.Ln@U3D% tax attorney would be entitl&d to fees only on delinq.wnt texee actually collected~andpaid to the Qollestor of taxer dtiap: In Qpinions O-237 erld O-237Ai the period of the contxycnct;~i the period of the oontreat~is teken ae ~be&ngthe twelve month6t per%+ and sii (Lddftiotaal mobths are allawed to proeeeute to trial oourt judgmeatb 6uit6 fMed in the twelve months' period. It is the opLnlon of this de-ant thet Opinion No. O-6434 Is the comeat interpretationof the law, and that when the tax attorney has filed suit during the twelve mcnthe perJod aud ha6 taken a final judment within the months period, he hes t?ompletedperfoz-manae on his thi8 bightem contract and is ent5.tledto the fee set forth fn the aon- WaOt whbn the prope~y ii eeld at a jm+ent aale, We trust aetisfactorilyancwerb your inqui.ry. Tours very truly ATT’DWEY(BU'EXALOF @X&S