Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )

The Honorable Curtis L. Owen Opinion No. H-731
Criminal District Attorney
Smith County Re: Salary of the Judge of the
403 Smith County Courthouse Court of Domestic Relations of
Tyler, Texas 75701 Smith County.
Dear Mr. Owen:
You have requested our opinion regarding the salary of the Judge of the
Court of Domestic Relations of Smith County. Specifically, you ask whether
article 3912k, section 1, V. T. C. S., has repealed article 2338-8, section 5,
V. T. CS.., and, if it has not done so, whether the salary which section 5 authorizes
to be paia to the Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations should include a sum
equal to the supplements paid by Smith County to its District Judges as members
of the Juvenile Board.
Article 2338-8, section 5 requires that the Judge of the Court of Domestic
Relations of Smith County be paid “the same salary paid to the District Judge by
the State of Texas. ” Article 3912k, section 1 provides:
Except as otherwise provided by this Act and
subject to the limitations of this Act, the
commissioners court of each county shall fix
the amount of compensation, office expense,
travel expense, and all other allowances for
county and precinct officials and employees
who are paid wholly from county funds, but in
no event shall such salaries be set lower than
they exist at the effective date of this Act.
Article 3912k, section 8 repeals any “locat, special, or general law”
which “prescribes the compensation. . . for any official or employee covered by
this Act. ” Thus, if article 3912k, section 1 is applicable to the Judge of the
Court of Domestic Relations of Smith County, article 2338-8, section 5 has
necessarily been repealed.
p. 3119
The Honorable Curtis L. Owen - page two (H-731)
In our opinion, however, article 3912k, section 1 is not applicable to the
Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations of Smith County because he is not a
“county [or] precinct official. ” In the first place, the jurisdiction of the Court
of Domestic Relations of Smith County is “concurrent with the District Courts
in Smith County” in certain subject matters. V. T. C. S. art. 2338-8, $2(a).
In addition the Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations is to be paid “the same
salary paid to the District Judge by the State of Texas. ” V. T. C. S. art. 2338-8,
5 5- Furthermore, article 6. 05~ of the Texas Election Code, in grouping various
offices for purposes of their appearance on the general election ballot, lists
“Judge, Domestic Relations Court” under the category of “District Offices. ”
Finally, this office held in Attorney General Opinion M-1125 (1972) that the
Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations for Midland County is neither a county
officer nor a precinct official for purposes of article 3912k. It is therefore our
opinion that, since the Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations of Smith County
is not a county or precinct official, his salary is not affected by the provisions
of article 3912k, section 1 and therefore, that statute did not repeal article 2338-8,
section 5.
Your second question inquires whether the salary authorized by article
2338-8, section 5 should equal the total salary paid to the Smith County District
Judge, including supplemental payments made by Smith County to its District
Judges as compensation for their membership on the Juvenile Board. In Attorney
General Opinion C-491 (1965), this office considered this question as it applied to
the salary of the Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations for Midland County.
The Midland County statute, article 2338-20, section 6,V. T. C. S., however, re-
quired that the Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations “be paid a salary which
shall be equal to the total salary paid to the District Judge of the 142d Judicial
District of Midland CZy. ” (emphasis added). Attorney General Opinion C-491
held that the phrase “total salary ” includes both the salary fixed by the General
Appropriations Act and paid by the State, and also the additional amount paid by
the County for service on the Juvenile Board. Article 2338-8, section 5 does not,
however, employ the phrase “total salary. ” Indeed, it specifically requires pay-
ment to the Judge of the Court of Domestic Relations of “the same salary paid to
the District Judge by the State of Texas. ” We believe that the meaning of this
directive is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the salary
authorized by article 2338-5, section 5 does not include an amount equal to the
supplements paid by Smith County to its District Judges as members of the
Juvenile Board. The Commissioners Court of Smith County must pay the Judge
of its Court of Domestic Rel,ations the same salary paid to its District Judgeh
the
---- State of Texas.~
p. 3120
The Honorable Curtis L. Owen - page three (H-731)
SUMMARY
Article 3912k, section l,V. T. C. S., does
not repeal article 2338-8, section 5, V. T. C. S.
The salary of the Judge of the Court of Domestic
Relations of Smith County is equal to that portion
of the salary of the District Judge of Smith County
which is paid by the State of Texas.
Xery truly yours,
NL. HILL
Attorney General of Texas
Opinion Committee
jad:
p. 3121