Case Information
*1 Honorable C. ~oodrow Laughlin
Counyr lkbtorney
Jim Rells County
Aliae,Texas IJO. o-1387
Dear sitr chaien &I Creation of doficiemy debt against independent sahool di6triot loaal xaintenanoo fund.
% &t--S in r606ipt Of yO,W lOtt6r Of G6ptember 1, 1999, reqUO6t- ing (u1 Opinion Of this thTpartxOnt, afilch road6 ix parb a6 foollOwS: "It appsar6 that an independent 60hOOl distriot in this couaty is attempt- ing to borranthe 811~1 of 3,GW from a looal bank for the purpo66 of oroot- lag a bilding. The board of tru6teo6 intand to sign a note for ono.yosr, tith tho privilegeof renar!i?lg the note frnny+ar to year until the do% is pnicl. !&o p,-ynonts upon tho not6 aro to bo made out of the looalmainte- nanco fund.
"I would lik6 your opinion to show the axumers to the folloning questions: %%I an indepondont school di6triot borrtrrr money for the purpose p~~0ha6- ing building material to be used in erRCting a soho building? If 60, and tho note is nado psyable withinone.yoar, must this note be paid with- in th6 year, do the school tr~Ste6S ham3 fh0 pow6r to renew the not6 indaf- initely? If the school trustees have this power, do they have the powor to m&o payxenix out of the loaal malntsnanoo fund?"
Xt is apparent from your letter that bh6 aohool district doos not.aontemplate voting a tax or is6uiag &mds for the oreotion of a 6ohool building, but tho trustees merely intend to borrou the money without ask- ing any additional provisions thorofor.
brticlo Revised Civil Statutes, 1926, prcnrid68 in part as follorvs:
"!Ch6 public free school funds shall not be expended exoept for the folloz- lag purposes;
“2. Locnl school funds from distriot taxo6, tuition foes of pupils not entitled to fret tuition and other local sour008 msy be used for th6 pur- pose6 enmnorated for State s.nd OOUagr fund6 sxd for Rurohaeing appliances and supplies, for the psymont of insurance premlmss, janiters and other .asployees, for buying 6chool sites.'tmying, building and repairing and renting school hoUS66, and for Other purpose6 neco66ary in the ocmduat of the tiblic sohools to 'ke determined by the Board of Tru8tee6. . . ." (undersb%ng &ws)
Hon. c. Soodrou Laughlin, page 2 (O-1967)
Xrtlole 2749, Revised Civil Statutes, 1926, contains the follouing 1m;guago:
n . provided, that tho truetees, in makiag aontracts nith teachers, si% not create a defioionoy debt again6t the di6triot.6
Thhe suprame Court in Collier Vt. Peacodc (1900j, 64 S.W. S.7:. 1027, hsld that a board oftrurte66 ra6 not authorfred to oxeouto a teaoher'o ooatract 6hiah mmld,oause a deficiehay debt against the SOhO f&d of the district for ~w partitula~ year. The same doctrine ha6 ~be6n extended and applied only to teachers' ocntraotcr but to othor Ob1igatiOD6 such a6 the prohaao of 6upplios, oqaipnent, and -6Dt im~orSmtmts t0 th0 6OhOO19rO96rtiO6.
In Te~~pleman Common School Distriot tt. 9oyd g. Head Compauy (P.C.L. 1337). 101 S.V;. (2d) 362, two marrauts uero issaod,in payment. for soptio toilets, 6aidwarr6nt6 being dated B&mmry 22, 19X5, due February 1934 and April 1, 1934. These vero rea6wal murants and there was no showing that the disfrict had any availakls funds on hand for tho year for VIII& the purohaso -6 mado. The court in holding that rec0ml-y could not'behad on 6sid WaDrant stated: %ilo the language used in said strbta (2740) ?OferE speaifioally to a defioiemy oreated in .3ihe empbyment tkaohera, it ha6 been hold that it app1io6 with equal foroo to dolrt6 iaourred da the parohase of equip aent. In this commotion, the Court of Mvil Appealo in Stephenson vs. union Eeating co., 62 S.S. 128, 129, in referring to the holding of the Supreme Court in Collier ~6. Poaoook, 6upra saidr "'It is held that a warretlf for a teaoherts salary in excess of th6 sum apportioned to the district for the year oamot be mad6 a charge upon fuuds Of a 6ubs6qU& year. Article 6969 (Dow Article 2749) was OOD- atrued a6 a 1imiCstioZI upon th6 polrsr6 Of the iXW3t60 tO OOntraOt any dobt vhinh would oau6o a defioienay 111 the soh~sl fuud of the district. Rhilo tie article applies alone to OOIZtraot8 for teachera' 6alarie6, Do thinktthe coimtraction plaoed upon it w the Supreme Court applies with eqnnl force to the artidles controlling the psrOh66e of school fWaitWe.*'
'Ibis same do&rim has b6en aDDlied to indoaendeat scheol dis- Mstri& vse Weeat liistn- 2% 8813 First Eaticmal Bnkvs. (T.C.A. 1938) 114 S 3. 2d 382.
?a the last &ted ease, the suit was upon warrants $turiug ouo, two, and three years frcm date, bearing rirper cent interest, &yable out of the looal maiateaana, fund for furnitpre or momy advanaod to pur; abase Putitare. The oourt6tatedt
Boa. C. Woodrow Laughlin, page 3 (O-1387)
"Nor wore thsre, for the partioular years over sad above the amounts necessary to oonduot the school, axy available fund out of whiohthese dObt6 aould be paid."
It was again pointed out by the Court in Earling~n Independent School District ~6. C. H. Page dc &OS. (Cm. App. 19S2) 48 S.??. 26 983, that :
"Prom the above, it 16 evident that the pewers of the 6ohool board to ex- pend the fund6 ofths distrlotare atalltimeslimlt6dto sn available fuud, and to the particular thing presoribed @ fha 6tatuto. The board near has any authoritiy to oxpemd find6 that are not available."
In an6w6r to your q"O6tiOll6, it i6 our OpiniOn that an iXid6pOn- d6nt school distriot may use any 6urplus funds in its looal maintenance fund for the plrposo of erecting a aahool building, and msy issue its nidonoe of indebtedness in contemplation of current rwonuos: kut what- ever the form of said Ovideaoo of indo%tedno66, tho Board of Tru6tee6 is authoriced to or6at6 a doficicmcy dobt against 66id fbd for future yoar6, and the person advancing such money must look aololy to tho surplus fund6 accumulated for the year raid obligation ~$6 oroat&, and aotto the r6vonuo of sub6oqueat yOar6, the time of psgm6nt not being controlling.
YOU-6 VOrJr truly By /6/ Ceoil 8. Camnsok Cooil C. Cammaok Assistad APPRGVED SZP 18, 1939
b/ GZRALD C. MkNN
ATTORNEY GIWXAL OF TSXAS