Can Texas judicial fund money replace county cuts to a statutory probate court's budget?

Plain-English summary

State Senator Mike Jackson, writing on behalf of the Harris County Civil Courts, asked the Attorney General whether the judicial fund created by Government Code section 21.006 could be used to offset a statutory probate court's reduction in funding by the county commissioners court. In other words, when the county cuts a probate court's budget, can state judicial-fund money fill the gap?

The opinion walked through how the money moves. The judicial fund is a separate fund in the state treasury, usable only for court-related purposes supporting the state's judicial branch. Statutory probate court clerks collect a $40 filing fee in each probate, guardianship, mental health, or civil case and send it to the comptroller for deposit in the judicial fund. The state then compensates each county that collects those fees, $40,000 per statutory probate court judge (plus $5,000 for each presiding judge), paid into the county's "contributions fund." At year's end, the comptroller compares what each county deposited against what it received, and remits any excess proportionately to the counties that paid in more than they got back, again into the county's contributions fund.

The key limits came next. By statute, money allocated from the judicial fund into a county's contributions fund must be used only for court-related purposes to support the statutory probate courts in the county. The opinion found no other statutory restriction on how the funds may be spent. But it pointed to a specific prohibition: a county may not reduce the funds it provides to support its statutory probate courts because contributions-fund money is available to offset the reduction. Although neither the request nor the Harris County Probate Court's letter detailed the specific funding cuts, the opinion concluded that a county cannot cut probate-court funding on the theory that a judicial-fund allocation will cover it, and cannot use the allocated judicial funds in any way that contravenes the statutory requirements.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Harris County and its commissioners court (as the opinion held for them): The opinion told the county that it could not treat the availability of contributions-fund money as a reason to lower its own support for the statutory probate courts. The judicial-fund allocation supplements, it does not replace, county funding.

The statutory probate courts (as the opinion described it): Under the opinion, the contributions-fund money allocated to the county had to be used for court-related purposes supporting those probate courts, and the courts' county funding could not be reduced because that money existed.

On how the money may be spent (where the opinion stopped): The opinion identified only the "court-related purposes for the support of the statutory probate courts" limit and the no-offset rule. Beyond those, it found no statutory restriction on how the funds may be used and did not impose one.

Common questions

What is the Texas judicial fund?
The opinion described it as a separate fund in the state treasury, administered by the comptroller, that may be used only for court-related purposes supporting the state's judicial branch, funded in part by court fees.

Can a county use state judicial-fund money instead of its own to pay for probate courts?
No, not as a replacement. The opinion concluded a county may not reduce the funds it provides for its statutory probate courts because contributions-fund money is available to offset the cut.

What can the contributions-fund money be spent on?
The opinion said it must be used only for court-related purposes for the support of the statutory probate courts in the county, and it found no other statutory restriction on its use.

Where does the contributions-fund money come from?
From state compensation tied to the $40 filing fees the probate courts collect and remit, plus any year-end excess the comptroller distributes back to counties that paid in more than they received.

Background and statutory framework

The judicial fund is a separate fund in the state treasury, usable only for court-related purposes supporting the judicial branch. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 21.006 (West 2004). Various courts collect costs and fees for deposit into it. Id. §§ 51.005 (West 2005), 51.702(d) (West Supp. 2010). Statutory probate court clerks collect a $40 filing fee in each probate, guardianship, mental health, or civil case and remit it to the comptroller for deposit in the fund. Id. § 51.704(a) (West Supp. 2010); id. § 51.704(c). The state compensates each collecting county $40,000 per statutory probate court judge, plus $5,000 for each presiding judge, paid into the county's contributions fund. Id. § 25.00211(a) (West 2004); id. § 25.0022(e) (West Supp. 2010); id. § 25.00211(b) (West Supp. 2010).

At fiscal year's end, the comptroller compares deposits against payments and remits any excess proportionately to counties that deposited more than they received, again into the contributions fund. Id. § 25.00212(a)-(b). Contributions-fund money allocated from the judicial fund must be used only for court-related purposes supporting the statutory probate courts in the county. Id. § 25.00213(b). And a county may not reduce the funds it provides to support those courts because contributions-fund money is available. Id. § 25.00213(c) (West Supp. 2010).

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 21.006 (West 2004)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.005 (West 2005)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.702(d) (West Supp. 2010)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.704(a) (West Supp. 2010)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.704(c)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.00211(a) (West 2004)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.0022(e) (West Supp. 2010)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.00211(b) (West Supp. 2010)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.00212(a)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.00212(b)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.00213(b)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.00213(c) (West Supp. 2010)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0875
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2011/ga0875.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

August 9, 2011

The Honorable Mike Jackson Opinion No. GA-0875
Chair, Committee on Economic Development
Texas State Senate Re: Use of the judicial fund created by section
Post Office Box 12068 21.006 of the Government Code (RQ-0951-GA)
Austin, Texas 78711-2068

Dear Senator Jackson:

On behalf of the Harris County Civil Courts, you ask if the judicial fund created by Texas Government Code, section 21.006, "can be used to offset a statutory probate court's reduction in funding by the county commissioners' court."[1]

The judicial fund is "a separate fund in the state treasury to be administered by the comptroller." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 21.006 (West 2004). The Legislature created the judicial fund to "be used only for court-related purposes for the support of the judicial branch of this state." Id.; see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0376 (2001) at 1 (concluding that compensation of court personnel is a court-related purpose). Numerous provisions within the Government Code require various Texas courts to collect court costs and fees and deposit them into the state judicial fund. See, e.g., TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 51.005 (West 2005) (fees and costs for the Texas Supreme Court), 51.702(d) (West Supp. 2010) (fees in statutory county courts).

Under section 51.704 of the Government Code, the clerks of statutory probate courts must collect a "$40 filing fee in each probate, guardianship, mental health, or civil case filed in the court." Id. § 51.704(a) (West Supp. 2010). Each statutory probate court's clerk sends the collected fees to the comptroller, who must deposit them into the state judicial fund. Id. § 51.704(c). Under a separate provision of the Government Code, the state compensates "each county that collects the additional fees under Section 51.704 in an amount equal to $40,000 for each statutory probate court judge in the county." Id. § 25.00211(a) (West 2004); see also id. § 25.0022(e) (West Supp. 2010) (requiring the state, through judicial fund allocations, to pay an additional $5,000 for each presiding judge of the statutory probate courts). This amount is "paid to the county treasury for deposit in the contributions fund created under Section 25.00213 in equal monthly installments from funds appropriated from the judicial fund." Id. § 25.00211(b) (West Supp. 2010).

At the end of the fiscal year, the comptroller calculates the amounts deposited in the state judicial fund by the counties under section 51.704 and the sum of the amounts paid to the counties under sections 25.00211 and 25.0022. Id. § 25.00212(a). If the amount deposited by all counties under section 51.704 exceeds the amount returned to all counties under sections 25.00211 and 25.0022, the comptroller remits the excess funds proportionately to each county that, under section 51.704, deposited a greater amount in the judicial fund than the amount that county received under section 25.00211. Id. When the comptroller remits the excess funds, those dollars are paid into the county's contributions fund. Id. § 25.00212(b).

The Legislature requires that money allocated from the state judicial fund into a county's contributions fund "be used only for court-related purposes for the support of the statutory probate courts in the county." Id. § 25.00213(b). Beyond this requirement, we find no statutory restrictions on how the funds may be used. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0340 (2005) at 6 ("The commissioners court is authorized to make reasonable decisions as to whether a particular expenditure is for court-related purposes, subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion."). However, "[a] county may not reduce the amount of funds provided for the support of the statutory probate courts in the county because of the availability of funds from the county's contributions fund." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 25.00213(c) (West Supp. 2010). Neither your request letter nor the letter from the Harris County Probate Court details the nature of the specific county funding reductions for the statutory probate courts, but by statute a county may not reduce funding because a judicial fund allocation is available to offset the reduction. Further, a county may not use state judicial fund allocations in any manner that contravenes the requirements established by statute.

SUMMARY

The Legislature requires that state judicial fund dollars allocated to a county's contributions fund be used only for court-related purposes for the support of the statutory probate courts in the county. Beyond this requirement, we find no statutory restrictions on how the funds may be used. However, a county may not reduce the amount of funds provided for the support of the statutory probate courts in the county because of the availability of funds from the county's contribution fund. A county may not use the allocated judicial funds contrary to these statutory requirements.

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID J. SCHENCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

JASON BOATRIGHT
Chair, Opinion Committee

Virginia K. Hoelscher
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Mike Jackson, Chair, Senate Committee on Economic Development, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas at 1 (Mar. 8, 2011), https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opin/index_rq.shtml ("Request Letter").