Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan

Decision Date21 February 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-0683,96-0683
Parties40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 355 . Cynthia AGAN, County Treasurer of Titus County, Texas, Respondent. Supreme Court of Texas
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Charles J. Hlavinka, Robert W. Weber, Texarkana, for petitioners.

Gary Shaver, Gregory P. Grajczyk, Longview, for respondent.

BAKER, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether the Commissioners Court of Titus County may divest the County Treasurer of payroll preparation responsibilities and transfer these responsibilities to the County Auditor. The County Treasurer filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the Commissioners Court's action. Both parties moved for summary judgment. In addition to their summary judgment evidence, the parties filed a joint stipulation of uncontested facts. The trial court denied the County Treasurer, Cynthia Agan's (Agan), summary judgment and granted the Commissioners Court's summary judgment. The trial court denied the Commissioners Court recovery of attorneys' fees. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment for the County Treasurer. That court also ordered the Commissioners Court to return the payroll preparation responsibilities to the treasurer's office and to adequately fund the treasurer's office. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of attorneys' fees for the Commissioners Court.

We conclude the Commissioners Court did not abuse its discretion when it transferred the payroll preparation duties from the County Treasurer's office to the County Auditor's office. However, we find that the Commissioners Court exceeded its authority by transferring certain other functions from the County Treasurer to the County Auditor's office. These functions belong to the County Treasurer's office. We affirm the court of appeals' denial of attorneys' fees to the Commissioners Court. Accordingly, we affirm in part and otherwise reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment accordingly.

I. FACTS

The summary judgment evidence and the stipulated uncontested facts show that Agan is the elected County Treasurer in Titus County. In 1987, Titus County hired a part- time assistant County Treasurer, or payroll clerk, whose primary duty was preparing the county payroll. From 1987 until 1994, Agan and her assistant prepared the county payroll. In 1994, the Titus County Commissioners Court amended the county budget to combine administrative duties involving county payroll, the insurance program, personnel, and receiving purchase orders and their payment into one full-time position assigned to the County Auditor's office. These responsibilities had previously been divided between the payroll clerk in the County Treasurer's office and a part-time employee in the County Auditor's office, who had recently resigned. The County Treasurer's payroll clerk transferred to the County Auditor's office to fill this new position. The effect of these changes is to remove payroll preparation responsibilities from Agan and transfer them to the County Auditor's office.

As a County Auditor employee, the payroll clerk performs the same functions as she did in the County Treasurer's office. Her duties include: (1) collecting timesheets from all county departments, entering timesheet data into the county computer system to generate payroll deductions for FIT, FICA, Medicare, insurance, retirement, and child support payments; (2) making FIT deposits with bank; (3) making child support deposits with appropriate offices; (4) depositing payroll funds; (5) paying insurance premiums; (6) preparing insurance claims; (7) wiring payments to third party administrators; (8) answering questions about insurance claims or payments; (9) preparing and transmitting W-2's and 1099's; and (10) preparing payroll checks. After the payroll clerk completes these functions, she delivers the payroll checks with the timesheets to the County Treasurer, Agan, for verification, signature, and disbursement. As a result, Agan's payroll preparation responsibilities are diminished and she is the only person in her office.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In response to the Commissioners Court's actions, Agan sued the Commissioners Court seeking to declare the decision illegal and to order the payroll function back to her office. The trial court granted the Commissioners Court's motion for summary judgment and denied Agan's motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that the Commissioners Court could legally give the auditor's office the payroll responsibilities. However, the trial court refused to award the Commissioners Court attorney's fees. Agan appealed.

The court of appeals reversed the trial court and rendered judgment for Agan. The court of appeals rested its decision on two Attorney General decisions, Op.Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JM-911 (1988) and Op.Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JM-986 (1988). These opinions reason that the County Treasurer must prepare the county payroll because the payroll functions are so intimately linked that the payroll functions cannot be divorced from preparing the checks. Following this logic, the court of appeals decided that payroll preparation responsibilities must rest with the County Treasurer. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the Commissioners Court its attorney's fees. The Commissioners Court appealed.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our Constitution establishes the Commissioners Court as the county's principal governing body. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 18. The powers and duties of the Commissioners Courts include aspects of legislative, executive, administrative, and judicial functions. Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 482, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 1119, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968); Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex.1992).

Our Constitution vests appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over a County Commissioners Court with the district court subject to such exceptions and under such regulations as the law may prescribe. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8. With a few narrow exceptions, the Legislature has not prescribed procedures for the district court's exercise of this appellate jurisdiction or supervisory control. Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479. The enabling legislation empowering the district court repeats the Constitution's terms. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 24.020; see also 35 DAVID BROOKS, COUNTY & SPECIAL DISTRICT LAW § 5.11 (Tex. Practice 1989).

Case law defines the scope of the district court's jurisdiction. A party can invoke the district court's constitutional supervisory control over a Commissioners Court judgment only when the Commissioners Court acts beyond its jurisdiction or clearly abuses the discretion conferred upon the Commissioners Court by law. Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479 (citing Tarrant County v. Shannon, 129 Tex. 264, 104 S.W.2d 4, 9 (1937)).

If the Commissioners Court acts illegally, unreasonably, or arbitrarily, a district court may so adjudge. Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479 (citing Lewis v. City of Fort Worth, 126 Tex. 458, 89 S.W.2d 975, 978 (1936)). However, in reviewing a Commissioners Court judgment for abuse of discretion, the district court has no right to substitute its judgment and discretion for that of the Commissioners Court. Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479 (citing Lewis, 89 S.W.2d at 978). The district court may order the Commissioners Court to exercise its discretion, but cannot tell the Commissioners what decision to make. Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479. Once the Commissioners Court exercises its discretion, the district court may review the order for abuse of discretion. Ector County, 843 S.W.2d at 479.

IV. APPLICABLE LAW

Our Constitution creates the County Treasurer's office:

Except as otherwise provided by this section, the Legislature shall prescribe the duties and provide for the election by the qualified voters of each county in this State, of a County Treasurer and a County Surveyor, who shall have an office at the county seat, and hold their office for four years, and until their successors are qualified; and shall have such compensation as may be provided by law.

TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 44(a). This section establishes the County Treasurer's office, but gives the Legislature the responsibility to prescribe the treasurer's duties.

The Legislature established the County Treasurer's duties in § 113 of the Local Government Code. The County Treasurer's enumerated functions include:

The county treasurer, as chief custodian of county funds, shall keep in a designated depository and shall account for all money belonging to the county.

TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 113.001.

The county treasurer shall keep an account of the receipts and expenditures of all money that the treasurer receives by virtue of the office and of all debts due and owed by the county. The treasurer shall keep accurate, detailed accounts of all the transactions of the treasurer's office.

TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 113.002.

The county treasurer shall receive all money belonging to the county from whatever source it may be derived.

TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 113.003.

The county treasurer shall disburse the money belonging to the county and shall pay and apply the money as required by law and as the commissioners court may require or direct, not inconsistent with law.

TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 113.041(a). Enumerated or core functions are fundamental to the County Treasurer's office and the Commissioners Court cannot take core functions from the County Treasurer. The Commissioners Court may provide funds for adequate personnel and supplies, if necessary, to permit the County Treasurer to perform the functions of the office. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 83.006.

Several other statutes apply to the County Treasurer, but do not grant the County Treasurer exclusive power to perform specific functions. For example, § 155.021 considers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
487 cases
  • Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Combs
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2008
    ... ... No. 07-07-0172-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo ... October 28, 2008 ... See Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 81 ... ...
  • Heb Ministries v. Higher Educ. Coordinating
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2007
    ... ... No. 03-0995 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... Argued January 5, 2005 ... Decided ... Gonzalez, Amalia Rodriguez Mendoza, Travis County District Clerk, Austin, Kelly J. Shackelford, Hiram S ... 147. Id ... 148. See, e.g., Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 82 ... ...
  • Harris Cnty. v. Coats
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 2020
    ... 607 S.W.3d 359 HARRIS COUNTY, Texas and Kevin Vailes, Appellants v. Barbara COATS, ... 14-17-00732-CV Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). Opinion Filed ... ; Nagel , 349 S.W.3d at 794 (concluding commissioners court delegated responsibility and allocated funds for ... Comm'rs Court of Titus Cty. v. Agan , 940 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. 1997) (citing Tex ... ...
  • City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • April 13, 2000
    ... ... No. 98-0617 ... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ... Argued March 3, 1999 ... Decided January ... body's judicial remedies to a suit in Travis County district court against the Attorney General to challenge an ... See Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 81 (Tex ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT