August 16, 1971
Honorable Robert S. Calvert Opinion No. M-933
Comptroller of Public Accounts
State Finance Building Re: Questions concerning Attorney
Austin, Texas 78711 General’s Opinion No. M-898
.(1971), construing the Unem-
ployment Compensation Act
(Article 522113-7, sub-division
Dear Mr. Calvert: (d), Vernon’s Civil Statutes. )
Your recent letter to this office requests an amplification of At-
torney General’s Opinion No. M-898 (1971), which construed the Unem-
ployment Compensation Act (Article 5221b-7, subdivision (d), Vernon’s
Civil Statutes), insofar as that Act related to your authority to issue a
duplicate warrant, replacing a lost original warrant, for unemployment
compensation benefits more than one year after the date of issuance of the
original warrant.
The following questions are posed by your letter:
“( 1) May the Comptroller issue new warrants, not
duplicates, to the National City Bank ofWaco, Texas, on
the same facts outlined in Opinion No. M-898?
“(2) May the Comptroller issue new or duplicate
warrants to the payees of unemployment compensation
benefits warrants which are presented for payment more
than one year from the date of issuance of the original
warrants, where the Legislature has made special ap-
propriations for payment of such warrants? ”
Attorney General’s Opinion No. M-898 (1971) held that sub-division
(d) of Article 5221b-7, was applicable to both the initial payee and to the as-
signs of an unemployment compensation benefits warrant, and, further, that
the Article prohibited you from issuing a duplicate warrant for such benefits
-4551-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (M-933)
more than one year after the date of issuance of the original’warrant.
While it is true that the National City Bank, as assignee of the lost
unemployment compensation benefits warrants, has a claim against the State
of Texas for the amounts of such warrants, it is also true that the Bank pre-
sented such claims after the running of the one-year statute of limitations
set forth in sub-division (d) of Article 522113-7.
Article 5221b-7 forbids the issuance of duplicate warrants after the
running of the one-year statute of limitations, but does not specifically for-
bid the issuance of -new warrants after such period.
The second paragraph of sub-division (d) of that Article provides as
follows:
“If, after any warrant has been issued by the Comptroller
payable to a claimant for benefits under the provisions of this
Act, and such warrant shall have been lost or misplaced, or if
claimant for any reason fails or refuses to present said war&t
for payment within twelve (12) months after the date of issuance
of such warrant, such warrant shall be cancelled, and thereafter
no payment shall be made by the Treasurer on such warrant, and
no duplicate warrant in place thereof shall ever be issued. ” (Em-
phasis added. )
It is our opinion that a reasonable construction of the terms, purpose,
and intent of sub-division (d) of Article 5221b-7, a remedial statute, and of
the evil sought to be avoided by it, is that the Legislature intended that no
payment, either by means of a new or by a duplicate warrant, should be made
after the running of the one-year period.
If the issuance of a duplicate warrant, replacing the original and the
claim on which it was issued, is prohibited after a one-year period, then, in
our opinion, the issuance of a new warrant, replacing the original warrant
and the claim on which it was based, after a like one-year period is, a for-
tiori, prohibited.
Your first question is, therefore, answered in the negative,
-4552-
.,
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (M-933~)
We construe the one-year prohibition of sub-division (d) of Article
5221b-7 as applying only to payment on the original unemployment compen-
sation benefits warrant, and not to the claim itself. In other words, the
one-year prohibition of that Article does not bar payment thereafter of a
valid claim, provided the Legislature sees fit to approve the claim and ap-
propriate money to pay such claim.
The Legislature, in its most recent session, saw fit to appropriate
funds to pay the valid claims of payees of unemployment compensation bene-
fits warrants which were presented for payment after the expiration of the
one-year statute of limitations of Article 5221b-7.
As an example of the legislative intent to recognize, and pay, such
claims, Section 5 of House Bill 578, 62nd Legislature, R. S., 1971, pro-
vides, in part, as follows:
“Sec. 5. The following amounts are hereby ap-
propriated out of the Unemployment Compensation Benefit
Account Fund #937 _____-________-____________________
“To pay W. D. Collard, 4145 Patricia Street, Fort
Worth, Texas 76117, for payment of Warrant #HO40840 on
which the Statute of Limitations prohibits payment -------
____________ 24.00. . .‘I
In answer to your second question, you are advised that you may
‘issue a new warrant to the payee6 or assigns of unemployment compensa-
tion benefits warrants, presented for payment after the expiration of the
one-year statute of limitations, in the event their claims against the State
have been approved by the Legislature, and in the event the Legislature
specifically appropriates funds to pay such warrants.
SUMMARY
(1) Pursuant to sub-division (d) of Article 522113-7,
Vernon’s Civil Statutes, the Comptroller may issue neither
a new nor a duplicate warrant to pay the payees or assigns
of an original unemployment compensation benefits warrant,
when such warrant is presented for payment more than one
year after the date ,of its issuance.
-4553-
Honorable Robert S. ~Calvert, page 4 ,~, (M-933)
(2) The one-year statute of limitations contained in
Article 5221b-7 only applies ‘to prohibit the Comptroller from
paying on the original warrant, after the running of the statute.
The statute of limitatians does not bar later payment of a
valid claim.
(3) Claims on such warrants, presented after the
running of the one-year statute of limitations, may be paid
by the Comptroller, by means of the issuance of a new war-
rant, provided such claims are valid, and provided further
that the Legislature has specifically appropriated funds to
pay such claims.
eneral of Texas
Prepared by Austin Bray
Assistant Attorney ~General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
Michael Stork
Joseph Sharpley
Ivan Williams
John Banks
MEADE F. GRIFFIN
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLA WHITE
First Assistant
-4554-