Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0007

A Navarro County justice of the peace announced retirement effective July 1, 2014, then declined to perform his JP duties thereafter.
The commissioners court accepted the retirement and declined to force the JP to "hold over" under Texas Const. art. XVI, § 17.
The county had been paying the JP salary, cell phone, health insurance, and a monthly vehicle allowance; question arose whether payments must continue after he stopped performing duties.
The opinion frames the legal conflict between the constitutional holdover duty (art. XVI, § 17) and limits on gratuitous expenditures (art. III, § 52(a)).
The commissioners court is the entity charged with initially determining whether continued payments would serve a public purpose under the three‑part test of article III, § 52(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a county must pay salary and benefits to a JP who resigns but refuses to perform duties	JP is a holdover officer entitled to salary as an incident of office	County argues payment would be gratuitous because JP refuses to perform duties	Cannot conclude as a matter of law that payments are required; county must first determine if payments meet art. III, § 52(a) test
Whether article XVI, § 17 eliminates county discretion to stop payments when JP refuses to serve	JP claims constitutional holdover requires continued pay until successor qualifies	County claims discretion under constitutional spending limits to withhold pay absent public purpose	Holdover duty exists, but payment still subject to article III, § 52(a) analysis by commissioners court
Whether prior cases holding salary is incident of office control here	JP relies on cases treating salary as incident to office regardless of service	County distinguishes those cases because those officers were willing and able to serve	Court finds those cases distinguishable where officer refuses to perform duties; not dispositive here
Whether commissioners court may deduct salary for neglect under art. XVI, § 10	JP would oppose deductions absent statutory authority	County asked whether it may deduct under art. XVI, § 10	Opinion declines to decide the § 10 question because resolution depends on § 52(a) analysis; cites Miller v. James on deduction limits

Plains Common Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Hayhurst, 122 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1938) (holdover provision prevents vacancies and cessation of government functions)
Tex. Mun. League Intergov'l Risk Pool v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 74 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2002) (three‑part test for determining whether public expenditure is prohibited as gratuitous under art. III, § 52(a))
Gambill v. City of Denton, 215 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1948) (holdover salary continues until successor qualifies by more than election alone)
Beard v. City of Decatur, 64 Tex. 7 (Tex. 1885) (salary as incident of office where officer willing to serve)
Comm'rs Ct. of Titus Cnty. v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. 1997) (judicial review for abuse of discretion by commissioners court)
Miller v. James, 366 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1963) (absent enabling legislation, art. XVI, § 10 provides no authority for deductions)