Could a Texas court master appointed under Senate Bill 1321 handle cases under Titles 1, 2, or 4 of the Family Code even though the bill amended a statute repealed by the same legislature?

Texas AG Opinion JM-692: Family Law Master Authority

Plain-English summary

The Lubbock County criminal district attorney asked whether a court master appointed under Senate Bill 1321 could handle matters under Titles 1, 2, or 4 of the Family Code. The question arose because the bill amended article 1918b during the same legislative session in which that article was repealed and replaced by provisions of the Government Code. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

The Attorney General concluded that the amendment remained effective. Section 311.031(c) of the Government Code provided that a code's repeal of a statute did not affect an amendment, revision, or reenactment adopted by the same legislature, and that the change was preserved as part of the code provision. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Under Senate Bill 1321, a judge of a court with jurisdiction over suits under Titles 1, 2, or 4 of the Family Code could appoint a master if the county commissioners court authorized the position. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG 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.

Common questions

Did the repeal of article 1918b invalidate Senate Bill 1321's amendment?

No. The opinion relied on the Government Code savings provision, which preserved amendments enacted by the same legislature that adopted the code and repealed the prior statute. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

What matters could the appointed master handle?

The opinion said the master was statutorily authorized to handle matters under Titles 1, 2, or 4 of the Family Code. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Who had to authorize employment of a master?

The commissioners court of a county in which the appointing court had jurisdiction had to authorize the employment. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Could one master serve more than one court?

Yes. Senate Bill 1321 allowed shared service, with appointment by unanimous approval of the judges served and termination by a majority vote of those judges. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Senate Bill 1321 amended article 1918b, section 1, while the same legislature's Government Code enactment repealed that article and revised it as sections 54.001 and 54.004. Section 311.031(c) supplied the rule for reconciling those enactments. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Citations and references

• Senate Bill No. 1321, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 851, § 1, at 2951
• Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, § 26(1), at 2048
• V.T.C.S. arts. 1918b, § 1; 5429b-1
• Tex. Gov't Code §§ 54.001, 54.004, 311.031(c)
• Tex. Fam. Code Titles 1, 2, 4

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0692
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0692.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

May 11, 1987

Honorable Travis S. Ware
Criminal District Attorney
P. O. Box 10536
Lubbock, Texas 79408

Opinion No. JM-692

Re: Authority of a master appointed under the authority of Senate Bill No. 1321, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 851, § 1 et seq., at 2951, to handle matters under Title 1, 2 or 4 of the Family Code

Dear Mr. Ware:

You ask whether a master appointed by a judge under Senate Bill No. 1321, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 851, § 1, at 2951, is statutorily authorized to handle matters under Title 1, 2, or 4 of the Family Code.

Section 1 of Senate Bill No. 1321, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 851, purports to amend article 1918b, section 1, V.T.C.S. (now sections 54.001 and 54.004 of the Government Code) without reference to the repeal of said article by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, § 26(1), at 2048. As so amended, section 1 of Senate Bill No. 1321 reads:

Appointment of Master. (a) The judge of a district court or other court having jurisdiction of suits under Title 1, 2, or 4, Family Code, as amended, may appoint a master to perform the duties authorized by this Act if the commissioners court of a county in which the court has jurisdiction authorizes the employment of a master. The court may employ either a full or part-time master. Except as provided by Subsection (d) of this section, the master shall be appointed by the judge and serves at the will of the judge.

(b) If the court exercises jurisdiction in more than one county, the master may serve only in a county in which the commissioners court has authorized the master's appointment.

(c) If more than one district court or other court having jurisdiction of suits under Title 1, 2, or 4, Family Code, as amended has jurisdiction in a county, the commissioners court may authorize the appointment of a master for each court or may authorize one or more masters to share service with two or more courts.

(d) If a master serves more than one court, the master's appointment must be made with the unanimous approval of all the judges under whom the master serves, and the master's services may be terminated by a majority vote of all the judges for whom the master serves.

Your concern appears to stem from the fact that Senate Bill No. 1321, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 851, § 1, at 2951, is an amendment to a statute repealed by the same legislature. The repealed article 1918b, now sections 54.001 and 54.004 of the Government Code, was amended by Senate Bill No. 1321. The Government Code, enacted by Acts 1985, 69th Legislature, effective September 1, 1985, is a unit of the statutory revision program authorized by article 5429b-1, V.T.C.S.

The Government Code, section 311.031, Savings Provision, provides in pertinent part:

(c) The repeal of a statute by a code does not affect an amendment, revision, or reenactment of the statute by the same legislature that enacted the code. The amendment, revision, or reenactment is preserved and given effect as part of the code provision that revised the statute so amended, revised, or reenacted.

The fact that the Sixty-ninth Legislature repealed article 1918b, V.T.C.S., does not affect an amendment, revision, or reenactment by the same legislature that enacted this provision of the Government Code.

SUMMARY

A master appointed under the authority of Senate Bill No. 1321, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 851, § 1, at 2951, is statutorily authorized to handle matters under Title 1, 2, or 4 of the Family Code.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General