Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas December 31, 1982 MARK WHITE
Attorney General Opinion No. MW-589
Supreme Austin, 512,475.2501 Telex Telecopier P. 0. BOX 12546 9101874-1367 TX. 76711. Court Building 5121475.0266 [2546] Nueces County Attorney Corpus Christi, Courthouse, Room 206 Texas 78401 marriage Re: 1.83 of the Texas Family Code (persons authorized construction ceremony) of article to conduct Dear Mr. Westergren: 1607 Main St.. Suite 1400 Dallas, TX. 75201-4709
You have asked whether a person who served as a justice 2141742-6944 peace for more than 15 years and then became a county commissioner authorized ceremonies under section 1.83 of 4624 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 Texas Family Code. That section provides in part: El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 915/533-3464 (a) The following persons are authorized conduct marriage ceremonies: 1220 Dallas Ave., Suite 202 Houston, TX. 77002.6966 . . . . 7131650.0666
(4) justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of criminal appeals, justices of 806 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 the courts of appeals, judges of the district, 8061747-5236 county, and probate courts, judges of
county courts at law, courts of domestic relations and juvenile courts, retired justices 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B McA,,en, TX. 76501-1665 and judges of such courts, justices of 5121662.4547 PfSlCl?, retired justices the peace, and
judges and magistrates of the federal courts of this state. 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 San Antonio. TX. 76205.2797 (b) For the purposes section, a 5121225-4191 retired judge of a county court, court, county court at law, court of domestic relations, An Equal Opportunity1 or juvenile or a retired Affirmative Action Employer is a person who has an aggregate of at least
15 years of any court courts or as the peace and who has The person ceased to serve considered as retired in (Emphasis added). SWVLX.
In your request letter, you stated as follows: - Page 2 NW-589) Just what to be given the last sentence [of (b)] is the precise question.... In the context entire paragraph the last sentence takes on at least two possible interpretations. One, does it mean that no matter how many years one served in a named judicial capacity that in any other capacity after ceasing in such judicial capacity he would not thereby be considered ‘retired in the capacity’ of such judicial service? Or, second, does the last sentence simply provide guidance as to what capacity one is retired in, if they have combined service in one or more named judicial capacities including that of justice in order to arrive at the full fifteen years of service required by sub-section 1.83....
There are three reasons why, in our view, the second of your two suggested interpretations clearly correct one. The first reason involves the word “capacity.” In our opinion, it coincidental that the legislature used this word in the last sentence (b) and in the preceding sentence. The fact that it did indicates that it meant for the word to have the same meaning in both contexts. In other words, the “capacity” to which the last sentence refers is one of judicial “capacities” named in the preceding sentence. We note if this were not the case, a question would arise to what the word does mean in context last sentence. Read broadly enough, it could embrace virtually any office or employment.
The second reason involves legislative intent. Under section 1.83, a person who serves in more than one of the named judicial capacities may accumulate the 15 years judicial that he needs to be “retired” within the meaning by aggregating his years of service in each capacity. Without guidance, however, one could not know in which judicial capacity such person would be deemed to have retired. We believe the legislature added the last sentence in subsection (b) to provide such guidance.
sentence makes it clear that a person who served in more than one of the named judicial capacities and who satisfies the criteria set forth Ian subsection (b) shall be deemed to have “retired” judicial in which he served. Thus, a person who served as a for 20 years and then served as a justice for one month would be a “retired of the peace” within the meaning of subsection (a)(4).
The third reason also involves legislative intent. Under the first of your suggested interpretations, a person who served in one or more of the named judicial capacities could not be a “retired” justice, the peace within the meaning judge, - Page 3 (MW-589) (a)(4) if he later served in some "capacity" which listed in that subsection and then retired in that capacity.
would be true even latter for one day. no reason why the legislature could have Since we can perceive intended such an illogical result, we reject interpretation implausible. We believe it would defeat legislature's 1.83, whereas the other objective in enacting is entirely consistent with that objective. See Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank of Hearne, 580 S.W.2d 344 (Tex. 1979) (where statutory language susceptible two constructions, one of which would carry out and the other defeat its manifest purpose, it should receive the former construction). individual in question
In the example that you provided, served as a justice of the peace for 15 years and is no longer serving As we construe the last sentence (b), his "capacity last service" of the peace. We therefore answer your question in the affirmative.
SUMMARY A person who served as a justice for more than 15 years and then became a county cormnissioner is authorized
ceremonies under section 1.83 of the Texas Family Code.
MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
RICHARD E. GRAY III
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Jon Bible
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger