Case Information
*1 Honorable Homer Garrison, $r. ”
Director, Department of Public Safety
Camp Mabry
Austin, Texas
Dear &. Garrison:
Opinion No. b-1649 Re: Dieposition of fees collected under H. B. ~rJo. “40‘7,‘Acts of the Regular. Seasloti oft the 46th Legislature.. : Your letter of June 27, 1939, addreseed to
thle office, reads as follows:
*HouBe Bill 840’7 paeeed .bg the Regtilar Session of the 46th Legislature and known ‘~ a8 the lCertlficate of Title Act’ provides. ,. in part as follows:
Each applicant for a or relssuance thereof shall pay to’thb deslgnat6d agent tht3 sum of Twenty-five .(25b) Cebte “which shall be forkarded to the Department together,wlth the appllcatlon for certificate of,tltle within twe$,$;four, (24) hours af.ter same hae~ beeri received by him an&I the Depart- ment shall return t.o the designated tigent each month Ten~(lOb) Cents for;ePoh,appli-, cotion to which a certiflcate’,df tltl+,~hae been issued, and the balanae shall be, paid over to Treasurer of thi% State to be uped- lted to the General Revenue Ftiud bf this State. 1
“This Depirtment,deaires tin opinion on the following q2e~tiona:
“1. sliotiid’ ‘the entire’ 25,d “ie pro.ti&d In Section 57 be deposited In the State *2 Treasury and the 106 be returned to the County Tax Colleotor by State warrant?
"2. Should the De rtment of Public Safety deposit only 15 8" of the 25~i collected In the State Treasury and deposit the 106 of the 25d aollected in the banks and return the amount to the Tax Collectors by certified checks?
"3. Should the Department of Public Safety deposit 15ji of the 2gb collected In the State Treasury and return the lo& to the Tax Collector In any manner the Department' might deem best?
a4. should,the Department of Public Safety deposlt'the entire 25b In the State Treasury and remit nothing to the County Tax Co$lector lf an application accompanied vlth a 25b fee Ls sent to the Department and a Certificate of Title is not issusd?
"If the answer to Questloh lo. 1 is in the aTfirmatire, then3
"5. Would'the. Tsx Collector have to assums the discount Of a warrant drawn In his favor as his part of the fees collected for a month?",
House Bill 100. 407 is a comprehensive Act consisting of 66 scations and is knowp as the "Certi- ficate of Title Act.," Its purpose Is declared by Sec- tlon 1 to be *to lessen and prevent the theft of motor vehicles, and the lmportatl~n~lnto this State of and traffic In stolen motoryvehlcles, and the sale of en- cumbered motor vehicles witliont the'enforced disclosure of any and all,lleas for whhich any s~uch to purchaser motor vehicles or the tlree,~radios, parts, or appli- ances thereof stan&3 as~sectilty.* Its p~ovislons are deslgaed to effectuate that purpose by a system of ap- plications for and the lssuanoe of oertlflcates of title to "every kind oT motor driven or propelled ~Wehicli now or hereafter required to be reglstered or llcehsed~- under the laws of the State." By its pro'vlal.ons appll- cations for certificate of title must be filed vith "County Tax Collector" (s) who are designated as agents. A uopy of an application, together with copies of all *3 ,, .,,
accompanying title papers offered In support thereofi .- . . 18 Bent ng tne agent, together with the appllcatlon~~~ fee of twenty-five cents collected from the applicant, to the Department of Public Safety, vhlch may aloge .' Issue such a certlflcate of title. Section 57 provides, for the dlstrlbutlon and dlsposltlon of the fee so col- lected and remitted. The qtiestlons you have. submittea call for a construction of this section.
We have examined said section In connection with the provisions of the entire Act and especially with reference to Sections 1, 2, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 38 and 39.~, We have encountered no difficulty In arriving at what we believe to be the leglslatlve, inte.nt as gathered from the words of the statute.
We answer first question In the negative for two reasons., In the first place, It Is made per- fectly clear m the plain wo~lng of Section 57 that only fifteen eents ,out of each fee of twenty-five cepts Is to be deposited ln.the State Treasury. In the next place, It Is equally~clear that ten cents 0P the fee Is to be returned to the 'oounty tax collectbr' that sends the fee to the Department. It Is not state money but Is considered as a fee belonging to the collector vho;sends it In and Is to partly compensate him for services rendered and expenses Incurred ia performing. prescribed duties. The Department holds this moneys, ten cents out of every'fee collected In trust for the collector that remits it. The only reason we can as- sign for this proaedure Is found In our answer to your fourth question.
We answer your third question In the,afflrma- tive for this reason: !@he statute Is silent as to how these remlttaanoes are to be made. 'fhey.must b&zde each month but that is the only requfrement.
answer makes It unneceesary to answer your second ques- ,, tlon.
We answer your fourth Question as lollover The pertinent part of the particular section under exam- ination ppovldes that *tie Department shall return to the designated agent ()aounty tax aollector') each month Ten (10) oents for each appllcatlon to which a certLfl.eate of title has been Issued." The ,DepPr*ent may.refuse to Issue a certifloate of title for any Of the reasons named In Section 38. An applicant so de- riled such a certificate le given the right to,appeal' *4 to the county tax collector of the county of his doml- clle for a hearing on his application. If h$s appll- cation Is by the collector denied, he may, within five days, but not thereafter, appeal to the county court of the county of his residence. The procedure to be followed In such cases Is set out In Section 39. It Is not clear whether furtherappeal is contemplated from the judgment of the county court.
It Is our opinion that when an application
has been finally denied that all of the fee of twenty- floe cents becomes the money of the State and should 'be deposited In the State Treasury. The Department
is not authorised to remit any part of said fee except where a certificate of title Is Issued by It. Rovever, ten cents out of every fee where the oertlflcate of title Is refused should not be deposlted in the Treas- ury until after It has been determined that no appeal will be taken, or If taken until the case Is finally disposed of and It has been definitely decided that no certificate will be issued. For, if the money Is once In the Treasury, It cannot be withdrawn except by a direct legislative appropriation.
We call your attention to the concluding para- graph of Section 57, not quoted in your letter, which reads:,
'Ro money collected under this Act shall ever be expended except by a dire& approprla- tion of the Legislature and such appropriation amount which vas col- shall never exceed that _ _ _ ~_ _ _ ~_ __ lected under this Act in the preceedlng two .* years." The above provision applies only to the State's part of the fees collected. It has no application what- ever to the ten cents to be returned to the collector.
Our answer to first question makes it unnecessary to answer your fifth and last question.
Hoping we have given you the Information re- quested, ve are Yours very truly
BW&LM:lm ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS APPROVED JUL 6, 1939
Ry /a/ Bruce W. Bryant Bruce W. Bryant %FA%ZZ.Z Assistant
ATTORREY GERRRAL APPROVED OPIRIOH COMMITTRR BY /a/ R.W.F., GRAIRMAR