Prewitt v. Smith, 12315
| Decision Date | 15 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 12315,12315 |
| Citation | 528 S.W.2d 893 |
| Parties | Leonard PREWITT, Executive Secretary of the Teacher Retirement System, et al., Appellants, v. Pamela S. SMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., John Reeves, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for appellants.
John P. Jones, Domestic Relations, Travis County, Austin, for appellee.
O'QUINN, Justice.
By judgment in a divorce action entered in August of 1973 George Michael Smith was ordered to pay the sum of $300 per month for child support. Thereafter Smith terminated his membership in the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, and in October of 1974 made application for refund of his accumulated contributions to the System. In compliance with Smith's application, the System caused to be issued a state warrant dated January 8, 1975, in the sum of $3,656.51, drawn by the Comptroller of Public Accounts on the State Treasury.
This appeal is from an order of temporary injunction issued by district court of Travis County to enjoin Leonard Prewitt, in his capacity as executive secretary of the Teacher Retirement System, from honoring any warrant of the state 'paying out any sum of money' to George Michael Smith. The trial court's judgment also extended a temporary restraining order to prevent the State Treasurer from honoring and paying the warrant.
The trial court acted without authority to interfere with administrative officers and agents of the state in the lawful exercise of duties committed to them by law. The judgment will be reversed and the temporary injunction dissolved.
This action was brought by counsel for the domestic relations division in Travis County in behalf of Pamela S. Smith, former spouse of George Michael Smith. After the trial court entered its temporary restraining order directing Prewitt to issue a 'stop-payment' order and enjoining Prewitt and the State Treasurer from paying or honoring a state warrant, the Attorney General made a special appearance in compliance with Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in behalf of the state officials, who at that time had not been served with citation.
The Attorney General moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order and challenged the jurisdiction of the court to restrain or enjoin state officials performing in their official capacities. The Attorney General pleaded that under provisions of the Texas Education Code contributions to the Teacher Retirement System refunded to members are exempt from 'garnishment, attachment, or any other process whatsoever.' (Sec. 3.07, V.T.C.A., Texas Education Code). The trial court on January 29, 1975, denied the special appearance, found it had jurisdiction to maintain the Status quo, and extended the temporary restraining order.
From time to time thereafter the temporary restraining order was extended until hearing was obtained on the temporary injunction on March 4, 1975, after which this appeal was perfected.
The duties of the state officials involved in this action are stated in statutes, as indicated. Prewitt's duties, as executive secretary of the Teacher Retirement System, are:
'Whenever any person ceases to be a member of the retirement system, except by death or retirement . . . He shall be paid, after applying in writing . . . All accumulated contributions in his individual account in the member savings account; his account shall be closed, and his membership (if not previously ended) shall be terminated.' (Emphasis supplied) (Sec. 3.52(b), Texas Education Code)
The duty of the State Treasurer with respect to payment of warrants is:
(Emphasis supplied) (Article 4371, Vernon's Anno.Tex.Sts., Acts 1931, 42nd Leg., p. 396, ch. 242, sec. 1).
It is undisputed that the state warrant issued to George Michael Smith was authorized by law and was validly drawn on the Treasury by the Comptroller of Public Accounts as required by law.
The Constitution of Texas, Article II, section 1, provides that the powers of government 'shall be divided into three distinct departments' and prohibits one department from exercising the power properly 'attached to either of the others.'
It is settled law in this state that the courts do not have jurisdiction to enjoin or otherwise interfere with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Com'n
... ... See, e.g., Richardson v. Martin, 127 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. Civ.App.-Waco 1939, writ ref'd); Prewitt v. Smith, 528 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1975, no writ). Second, there are the cases holding ... ...
-
Davidson Texas, Inc. v. Garcia
...funds in the registry of the court are "current wages for personal services" and are exempt from garnishment Id. at 169. In Prewitt v. Smith, 528 S.W.2d 893, 896 (Tex.Civ.App.1975, no writ) this Court held that funds of the State's retirement system are "a part of a member's compensation or......
-
Collida v. Collida, 7914
...The statement is made that only the last provision (State Employees Retirement Act) has been construed by an appellate court and Prewitt v. Smith, 528 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1975, no writ), is cited. We have concluded that case is not controlling as to the question before us. In t......
-
U.S. v. Wakefield, 18009
...fact that he is standing by is not controlling and military retirement pay is not current wages under Texas law. Appellants cite Prewitt v. Smith, 528 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1975, no writ) as holding that retirement pay is current wages and therefore not garnishable. We have review......