Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

THE ATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN HonorableDenver County Attorney Conz~les county GonzEiloe , T6xa5 Dear Sir1 1040, YOU SdViS.8 u5 .that when ct GollnQuent taxes before suit is r ffiakee 00 charge at8 of exmption, $ho follo?iing under suoh oir- or such certlfloate of has been filed and the at a tax 8a1e1*z 331, Revised Civil Staiutes, reads in oulating and preparing reaenption and rocelpts, re?ortlng and orcdlt- ons, pooting Cozmtrollor~s reatq- . tion m&em on the deliur,uent tax record or an- nual dolinouofit list, nailing certlfioates of re- aeqtion to taxpapero after approvul by the Comg- troller, and for iosulnlr, reoelpts or cartlficatoo of rcdezptlon for property show on the annual delln~ueut list, the tax collector shall be en- .‘.G78 EIonorable .Deove; E. Perkins, Page 2 titled to a fee of one dollar ($1.00) for eaoh oorrcot assosa.-,ent OS lana to be sold, said fee to bo taxed OS costs uCainst the delinquent. 5 Correct asseseaent 8s herein used Deans the 1s; ventory of all. propertl’es owned by au individual ror my One year. Provided, that in no ~335 shall the state or oounty be Iloble for said fee.” It r&l bo noticed t,hat the $1.00 fee 15 intf3Ga8a to be a compensation for the several services mentioned in . the first sentenoe of tho statute. It 1s Got merely a foe ror lsaulng a. redemption oertlfioate, For instanoe, thore is iooludad the service of wissuinC -.- reoolnts or certificates OS redonptlon for oroperty ahown on the enuual dclimucot list.” Artiole 7m-i?evlsed m Statutes, provides that *any dalinauent tosoarer whoso Lands have been i?eturuea delinquetit or reported sold to the State for taxes due thereon, or any one havicg an interest therein, my redees the sa3e nt any tlne before hln bIGa are sold under the provisions of t!lis oheater, by paying the taxes due thereon since famnry 1, 1885, wi%h int&~~t at the rate of six percent per anriw nGa all oosts and the penalty of ten peroent +” It ‘1s quite apparent that the term “before his lands ara sold” is used in Article 7339 nlt!lout rsferenoe to the question ol’ vihethor suit has been fllod. There is no require- ront in Article 7331, or elne%horo, that the filing of suit should be prc- requisite to the mturity Of the fee in ques- tion. In via:: of this, and of the further fact that many of the services for vM.oh the fee la to furnish oozpensatlon are not dependent up% the filing of suit, we are of the -opin- ion that tho use ‘of tho riords *to bo sold” in the clause *the tax collector shall be entitled to a foe of $1.00 -for ‘each correct asccssneA of land to be sold” was not intended to mean that the fen should be due only ln those cases whom suit has been filed. i’le acoordi.cCly ausvier your question in the af flr;iatlvc. This COGStFUOtiOG is in acOo;& with that placed on the statute by the CoEptrolIer’s OfSico and the opinion of form3 Assistant Attorney Goneral homer 0. De?:olfo, aatea . 679 honorableDenverE. Perkins,Page 3 November26, 1935, reCOrdeC in Vol. 541, page 219, Attor- ney Censral~sLetter OpinionReport6, Yours very tru.l& .I ATTORNEY GXERAL OF !FEXAS Glenn R. Levfls AssIstant GF&:BBB