OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF -
AU6TlN
"I:$you Sind a conflict.inthb:Ebov~'nsied
opinions; the%,'please'
advise thi!c'd&@&sent
what is the eorrecc laew
.;In
Opinion,No. Q-217, thie departsymtwas selced
the Pollo%iag Ql6~6tiOIXt
Honorable George H. Shepp6r4, Page 2
wQnedUsm 61 Gould 66i.daontraotor eon-
time to receive 8CNQUi6siOns on colleotionr
Qade by Tax Assessor-Oollector after December
31, 193k??- (Note! In this oaae Deeember 31,
1938, ~6s the terminatingdate of the contract).
The answer to thi6 question war given a8 follou6r
3 War ulmrer to UT 6ixth &6tisn 16
that the contractort"the tax afi8ormey)could
not continue to reoelte commi66ion6'onael-
Aaseaser-tb~ectar
prior to Deaember 91, 1938.'
Qpbhim Wunber @+237A ia a ~ea?m+ideratlen af
Opinion Number'O-237 ar+dappwma the 6bon'me66Uagr
In Oplniim Piunberdtf7A the following lmguege 6pp66$tii
to m&e plain our po6i-
daaire to 6tat.e
ial6 been recaM.tiered;
;k$ we deem it to be oorrect md adhere to
2
Opinion No,, O-237 was written in Nety, 1939, md
Opinfon No, *237A .tn November, 1943.
In &rtth, i
by this departmenti
request pertknent to
The tti,attornegfiled suit dtins; the term of
the contraat, sesured a 'Judgmenton e&d ~~16 in the trial
aonrt with&n six menthe after,the termin6blonof the 6on-
traot, and in the varioue fowalosure sale6 the property
wae purehased by Me State, The queetion presentedwa8
whether OF not bha delinquentf&x attorney wo\ildbe entithd
fo ael.lectthe 6ersM.esi6nsin the event;of reeale tide aPCer
the 6ix msnthe' per+
Nonoreble Oeorge K, Shrpperd, P6g, 3
The answer given to the above inquiry in Opinion
ho. O-6&3!+was:
Wnen the delinquenttnx attorney has filed
suit during the term of the contract and seoureS
a judgment on aaid suit in the trial court with-
in six months from the terminationdate of the,
contract we think that said attorney ban l6tmb-
116hed hi6 intere6t in the prdaeeds bf aaid $&d&z-
- -
any,vthai mafhave been &plied om hil co+&
aatlon in the form of fee6 taxed as ao8ts, under
the provisionsoLc&rtiole 73354" :Emphaeiaadded)
In6ofsr a8 th*se three opinions aomern celleotieu6
of oomirdasioneb delinquent tax attorneys aft&r the 6#
we8 Oe!c6ewithin thab ri% months~*
months* period wKen 'judgirient
period the first tw6 opinions oo~fliut with Opinion Xei -34;
~Theamf’lioli in thess opinionsari6e6 frapl8 de-
terx&.natlonf the period the aontre6t ie $.&ended to bq
*in force; \
“First
party agrees ta pay to Becoud Party
as compensationfor the 66rvioee hymndor re-
quir d per oeat fiat to ereeed fifteen 115) per
? orthe ascountcoL.lsoted~of all delinquent
cent:
&Wm a r%ading 60161~ of t&B lau~$W$e quoted above
from SeeBion VIZ1 it appeaF6 &ear that the ~daL.Ln@U3D% tax
attorney would be entitl&d to fees only on delinq.wnt texee
actually collected~andpaid to the Qollestor of taxer dtiap:
In Qpinions O-237 erld O-237Ai
the period of the contxycnct;~i
the period of the oontreat~is teken ae ~be&ngthe twelve
month6t per%+ and sii (Lddftiotaal mobths are allawed to
proeeeute to trial oourt judgmeatb 6uit6 fMed in the twelve
months' period.
It is the opLnlon of this de-ant thet Opinion
No. O-6434 Is the comeat interpretationof the law, and
that when the tax attorney has filed suit during the twelve
mcnthe perJod aud ha6 taken a final judment within the
months period, he hes t?ompletedperfoz-manae on his
thi8
bightem
contract and is ent5.tledto the fee set forth fn the aon-
WaOt whbn the prope~y ii eeld at a jm+ent aale,
We trust aetisfactorilyancwerb your inqui.ry.
Tours very truly
ATT’DWEY(BU'EXALOF @X&S