Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1970 )

HonorableWilliam C. Sparks Opinion No. ~-691 Criminal Dlstrlct Attorney Vlctorfa, Texas Re: Questions concerning jurisdictionof justice court In cases by Independent School District and City for personal property taxes, each in an amount in controversy of less Dear Sir: than $200.00. You have requested the Opinion of this office on the followingquestions,pertainingto the jurisdictionof suits for delinquent personal property taxes by an Independent School District and a City, acting together,when the amount in controversy in each suit Is less than $200.00, and there are no lien foreclosuressought therein. With your request you have s'ubmlttedyour brief with authorities and copies of previous opinions issued by this office, NOS. C-757 and V-1332, in support thereof. Questions Presented: 1. If a suit 1s filed by an Independent School District for personal property taxes, the amount In controversy less than $200.00 Including taxes, penalties and Interest, the District seeking personal judgment only, not foreclosure of any liens, is jurisdictionfor this suit exclusive in the Justice Court? 2. Must a Justice of the Peace accept personal property tax suits when submitted for filing by an IndependentSchool DistAet when the amount In controversy 1.9within the juris- dlctfon of his court? -333i- Honorable Wllllam C. Sparks, pag 2 (M- 691) 3. Has Opinion V-1332 been overruled by the Office of the Attorney General or is It still the holding of the Attorney General's Office that Article 7345b, V.C.S., does not apply to delinquent tax suits for the collectlon of personal property taxes? 4, Where the State and County do not have a lien for personal property taxes, are they a necessary party to any delinquent tax suit brought by an IndependentSchool District for the collection of personal property taxes? 5. Can a Justice of the Peace, as a condition ,precedentto the filing of a delinquent tax suit In his court for the collection of personal property taxes, the jurisdictional amount being within his court, require the attorney for the School District, who does not represent the State and County, to negative the existence of State and County personal property taxes assessed in the name of the defendant,before he will accept jurisdictionof his court for filing of School personal property tax suits? Insofar as Victoria County IS concerned,your question Number 1 Is answered In the affirmative. Article V, Section 19, Texas Constitution,vests In justice courts original jurisdictionIn civil matters, where the amount In controversyIs two'h&&ed dollars or less, exclusive of Interest, of which exclusive original jurls- diction Is not given to the District or County Courts; . . .'I However, It should be noted under Article V, Section 22, Constitutionof Texas, the Legislatureis empowered to grant to County Courts concurrent jurisdictionwith the Justice Courts. In some counties, the Legislature has so provided, In which cases exclusive jurisdiction in the Justice Court would not exist. We find no such statute for Victoria.County. -3332- Honorable William C. Sparks, page 3 (M- 69'1) Your question Number 2 Is also answered In the affirmative. Ru.le534, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, reauires 'When a claim oi?&emand is lodged with a rfusf.ice fo6 suit,,he shall i~ssueforthwith cltaiion& ---.I(-This ministerialilctby the justice of lnltlat;lng a suit Is not discretionary. Our answer to your question Number 3 Is thatOpInIon No. V-1332 (I.9511has n6t been overruled and we adhere to the holding thereof that Article 73&b, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, does not apply to delinquent tax suits :for the coll.ectionof personal property taxes. Mexla IndependentSchool Dl.strlctv. City of MexlaxF Tex. 95, 133 S.W.~-(~39). Your question Number 4 is answered In the negative. The State and County have no Interest In the subject matter of the t.axsuit of the School District and City, of such a nature that 1.tIs necessary for the State and County to be parties in order for the Court to grant complete relief to the School District and City. To hold that the State and County were Indispensableas parties when such suits were filed by the School District and the City In the county or justice courts would be equivalentto dismissal of such suits because of the lack of jurisdictionof the State's and County8s claims. 44 Tex Jur 26. 153-156, Parties, Sets. 1.1and 1.5,and Attorney General-IsOpinion NO. ‘c-757 (1966). Your question Number 5 ls answered S.nthe r?egati.ve. Tne causes nf actl.onsued upon by the at;torn~y.collectlng the taxes fog the School Dl.strictand the City are lnde- pendent of any t.*xcl.aLmthe State or Coun~tymay have agaifistLhe defendant. The justl.ceof the peace has no duty o?!authot-l.ty to d.!.r*ect: i:hefil.ingo:f(?l.a:l.msl.nany court,,even in ant;icSpation of avokl.i.np, a multLpl:Lcityof suits. :T.nn-ltt:ers of con~soll.dat:l.on of Prlusesof action or joirlder~ of p:~%:l.es the aut:ho!v:l,t;p of t:hejustl.rr? extends only to claims 01'actl.cnsa:l.regdy on hl.8dar:ke:f:. Rules 174 and 41,,, Texas ..~ .._.Rules .-... of C'l.vi:l ..-._.."-.l_ P:rocedure. .. -.I"-..-...- ~b.....-I Honorable William C. Sparks, page 4 (M-691) The docketing and Issuing of citation upon such suits is a mandatory ministerialduty of the justice of the peace, The State and County are not necessary and lndlspenaableparties to such suits and the justice of the peace has no duty or authority to direct the.flllng of claims .inany court, his authority as to joinder of actions and parties extending?only to suits already on his docket. y General of Texas Prepared by R. L. Lattlmore Asslatant Attorney General APPROVH): OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Kenneth R. Nordquist Gordon Cass Roland Allen Ronnie Carr Meade F. Griffin Staff Legal Assistant Alfred Walker Executive Assistant Nola White First Aselstant -3334-