Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Hon. ~;---_ Henrv -~~-_-” Wade Opinion No. C-226 Criminal District Attorney Records Building Re: Construction of Article Dallas, Texas 75202 8021 of Vernon's Civil Statutes relative to the Attention: depository for funds of Hon. Ted 2. Robertson the City and County of Assistant District Attorney Dallas Levee Improvement District. Dear Sir: Your request for our opinion concerning the construc- tion of Article 8021 of Vernon's Civil Statutes has been received by this office. This request indicates that the City and County ,of Dallas Levee Improvement District has designated the Republic National Bank of Dallas as its principal depository, but that the bank is not a County depository and has not made a bond payable to the district as required by Article 8021. On June 30, 1963, the bank did, however, advise that certain securities were on file in its trust department as collateral for the amount on deposit. No depository contract exists, and the auditor of Dallas County now questions this arrangement. The exact questions propounded to us in your letter are as follows: "1 . Does the City and County of Dallas Levee__ Improvement District have a legal right to keep all or part of its funds in a bank, not a county deposi- tory, that has not given 'bond to the district with a corporate surety company as surety, which is au- thorized to do business in the State of Texas, in an amount equal to the funds so deposited, conditioned upon the safe keeping of said funds and paying of the same? f (Art. 8021, V.R.C.S~.) "2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, is the pledge of collateral by the bank on file in its own trust department binding to pro- tect the district's deposited moneys: "a. without a written contract, or "b. with a written contract?" -1098- Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (C-226) Article 8021 states as follows: “The board of supervisors shall select a &- positorv or deDoSitorieS for funds of the district and the county treasurer shall deposit such funds of the districts in such depository or depositories as the supervisors may direct denository shall receive any thev shall Rive bondst;ut;; dis~tr,‘~ti~ith a corDor- ate surety c muany a r Y.W authorized to do businezs in the State of Texas. in an amount eaual to the funds so deaosited. conditioned uwon the safe keeping of said funds and navinz of the B.” (Emphasis added) The statute in question applies to all Levee Improvement Districts throughout this state. The board of supervisors may de- posit the district’s funds in any depository they choose, there being no requirement that the depository also be the county deposi- However it is necessary that the depository execute a bond :;:;‘a corporate surety company in accordance with Article 8021. It is immaterial that the banking institution may satisfy the dis- trict of its ability to safely keep the funds. The requirement of the Legislature is that the depository execute a bond, and we so advise you that the depository should be in compliance with the terms of Article 8021. Even if a written contract existed, it could not override the provisions of the statute. Your first ques- tion is therefore answered in the negative. The decision reached makes it unnecessary to answer your second question. SUMMARY The board of supervisors of a Levee Improvement District may deposit the district’s funds in any de- pository they choose, but it is necessary that such depository give bond to the district with a corporate surety company as surety, in an amount equal to the funds deposited, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8021 of Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General of Texas By&k-?d & 6chiii Fred D. Ward FDW: wb Assistant - 1099- ,, . Hon. Henry Wade, page 3 (C-226) APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE3 W. V. Geppert, Chairman Al10 B. Crow Wayne Rodgers 34. 0. Shultz Gordon Cass APPROVEDFOR THE ATTORNEYGENERRL By: Howard W. Mays -llOO-