Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

OFFlCE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Dm VI. Jaokaon
Mt.triat Attorney
Houston, Texas
, 1942, reque8tlng the opin-
stated question' reeds In
II. L. Washburn, oounty
1, or Artlole 3926,Vernon's
Statutea, provldee that the
all receive a oomlssion or
one per oent ot the acrtuel oash
reoelpte or eqih exeoator, administrator, or
guardl,en, upon, thcl approval .of exhibits and
gznrptk gt;p~a~aytg~ ;nf gm&idp-
ordinary adminimtratlon, u&e this rate or ooppl
miaaion apgl.y upon the acrtual oaab reoelpts or
Honorable Dan W. Jaok80~1, %a 2
the adPiiei8trator, au1 or whloh oaah 18 aommu-
nity PZVpWty, Or OBiy UpOn OBO-hsllr Or 8Uah
oath reoeipts as repreeantihg tha interest of
the deoeUeot 7
“‘1 have bsrore me at this time an estate
In whuhiohthe oash reusipts represent sommunj-
ty property !``lng arisen rrom income derived
rrom oommunlty roper@ ilurlng the pendenoy
0r the letatf5, Pram thm sale or 0omamhIty pru-
ferry, rents on oommunlty property and lib
The ease Is as admlnletratfor with the
will &``sxwi, and all 0r the property or the
deoeatm% was ulllod to the aurvlvlng spousa.*
“1 have dlmoovered no ease invoJ+lng this prs-
ala0 set or r8ot0. Prom the inv8sttgations 1 have
made 1 have reached the tentative aonoluslon, bers-
with subeittsd for your consideration, that th6 aom-
PiiaiaSiO~t3 Or the cOU&y Judge IW3t ba OSAOUbt@3e Up&i
the entire Ossh reotived rrom the ml1 sonmunity
interest inoludlq the one-hair illttW8St 0r the Bur-
virlng wire.
“1 base t&Is oonsluslon on the wall settled
rule that the adminietrator or tha deoeased husband,
even under a will, has the erolusive rI&t to ad-
ninister the entire aoamunlty property and not j\zet
a portion of it, and that ror purposes 0r admix&s-
tration the entlrs ammnity interest Is regarded
ee balougihg eutlrsly to the estate of the husband.
Lovejoy vs. Coohrell, Sea. A, 63 S. :?. (26) 1011.
Slnoe the entire uomtunity estate Is aubdeot to ad-
ninistratlon by the Probate Court It follows that
the county Judqe is liable on h-is 0rri0tii bohd r0r
the proger adnbistratlon of the entire aommunlty
interest by the administrator of the deoeaeeU h?ls-
band, and it, would therefore be fair to aliow him
his comolfsalons or oompensation on the full reoelpt8
rro~l the ootmunlty eatata and not fro2 half 0f the
reoeipta only.
" . . . .*
Arti0l.e 392k; Vernoots Annotated Ci+il siXtut
reads in ,7art as r0mms:
lienorable J.& W. JaOkm& -0 3
peroent apon the aotual sash reooiptr oi eaoh exe-
outor, admlnlstrator or guardian, up&~ the approval
0r the exhibita ana the rinal 8ettmnent or the ao-
count or euoh exaoutor, administrator or guardlsn,
but no more than one suoh oomalsslon ohall be oharged
on any aooount reoelvea by any suoh exeoutor, admln-
istrator or guardIan.*
Your uaetlon involvea the propoaltion whether or
not the county 1 udgs la entitled to the com&wlon allowed
by Article 3926, Veraton’@ Annotate& Qivll Statutes to be oal-
oulated~ on the oash.moalved by the administrator or aborinln-
trstrlx nhloh is aomiwn%ty property or only upon OBe-ho3r 0r
SUOh Oash reoelpts as repre+mtlng the interest sf the dew-
dent in oases of admltrfstirat~on wlth the all1 annexed and in
oases or ordinary ebmlnlstratlon.
The terat *reaelptsF as used in the statute does not
embraoecash on d.epo&it.4in &u&s at the time of the death of
the tsatator. (Tcir.,J~. 06l. 25, p. 260; Gocdwln v. Dow-,
280 8. w. 512; Y!ilZis vi !Xarvep, 26 5. pi. (2d) 288).
It is also well established that the Maaty Sudge
is not entitled to the etatutory fee where thee&ate. was ad-
ministered by an inbependent exeoutor or b
vivor . Article 3627, Vernon*s Annotated 8 ivfi
* Oompunity
3tatutes, *-
provldesr
Vhen a husband or wire shall die leaving any
consaon property, the aurvlvor my, at any time ar-
ter letters teetaueutary or of adniniatration have
been granted, and aq inventory, appraisement and
list or 01ain.a or the estate hare beeh returned,
n&e epplloation In writing to the oourt whlah grant-
ed suoh letters ror a pertition or such oommon pro-
perty, whioh applloation shal.l be acted upon at
aomw regulti term of the court.”
Unless there is a partition of the ooqnoa or ooa-
mnlty property as authorleed by Article 3627, supra, we are
- of the opinfofi that the aounty judge would be entitled to him
comnii~sion on all or the cash ,reoeIpts received by the adrain-
istrator or the administratrlr notwithstanding the iaot that
such rooelpts are oom?nunitg property. Exoept, as above stated,
cash 05 deposit in baahe at the tine 0r the death 0r tbm teata-
tor. It is our opinion that the judge rotid be entitled to
Honorable Den n. Jaokeoti, Page 4
the oamlwions an above mentionedla both oaaos st adsinlr-
tratlonr&th the will annexed and in @aso of ordinary ad-
mlnistratlon.
m OgMeotion with the IongoIng
to point
we want
out that the obunty Judgewould not be entitled
to reoeivo
euoh oormulasions ‘or fee@ poraonally but under the OfflOers’
Salary Law he muat oolloot the same and deposit them in the
Offloorr’ Salary Fund.
We hero been unable to find any oaae where the quoa-
tiona involved In this opinion have been deoldod by the appol-
late oourte. Howater, air above dtated, It 1.rour opinion that
the oounty judge la ontltled to the ooslpiadon on all the Oath
noelpt8 reoelvedby the admlnl&ntor or admlnl@t~trlxL~L
both oaoee mentionedln yqur inquiryunlosn there lme been a
partitionof'suoh commonor o6rPwrnlty property a8 authorisod
by Artlelo3627.
Trustlngthat the forogolngfully &newer0your la
qulry, we are
Y0urII 7ery truly
OF
ATTOBNBYQJClQRAL TEXAS