Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. LO-90-31 <br /> <br />The same conclusions would be applicable to a city. See Tex. Const. art. <br />III, ~ 51 (applicable to cities, counties, and other political subdivisions). <br /> <br />You also ask whether a city may seek reimbursement for expenses it has paid <br />in contravention of article III, s~ctions 51 and 52. Where payment is made from <br />public funds under mistake of law, the public body may seek reimbursement. City <br />of Taylpr v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1945); Cameron County v. Fox, 2 S.W.2d <br />433 (Tex. Comm. App. 1'928, jdgmt adopted). This is an exception to the general <br />rule that money paid under a mutual mistake of law may not be recovered. City <br />of Taylor v. Hodges, supra. The city would therefore be authorized to seek <br />reimbursement. It has discretion, however, whether to do so in a particular <br />case. Such factors as the amount of funds to be reimbursed, the ease of <br />collection, and the legal and other costs incident to collection might be <br />considered. See Attorney General Opinions JM-910 (1988); MW-93 (1979). <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />Sarah Woelk <br /> <br />Chief <br /> <br />Letter Opinion Section <br /> <br />Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works <br />