In Johnson v. State the 14th COA determined that if a clerk had not produced a bill of costs, the defendant could not be required to pay the court costs. Does anyone have an opinion whether I could use this opinion to argue against collection of court costs in Ch 59 asset forfeiture cases (even though those cases are civil in nature)? My issue is that our district clerk has decided to issue bills of cost on cases all the way back to 1999. She handed me the giant stack of them today (yes, the day before Thanksgiving).

Maybe it's the holiday looming ahead or my annoyance that this is all for conduct that occurred long before me or my DA, but I am not finding any good answers. I'm hoping some of you long term county government attorneys can give me a litlle hint. My DA does not want to pay these costs. Obviously the money was long ago distributed pursuant to our local agreements.

I can't speak to the applicability of the Johnson opinion (but like you said, it's a criminal case--and asset forfeitures are civil). I just wanted to point out that art. 59.05(f) authorizes court costs only for forfeitures of more than $2,500.

This issue has still not been resolved, anyone have any great ideas?? I have researched topics I thought I would never have to research again after law school, like laches, but they all have issues that will not work in this situation (Laches, for instance, is only defense to equitable right, not legal right, and cannot be used to bar an action before SOL has run - both problems for me). So anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Crickets . . . .

One cricket chirps, "Laches probably won't work against a county, as it is analyzed as a statute of limitations which won't work against the county." But you already knew that. I have occasionally embarrassed one of my clerks by asking them why we are merely shifting money from one county pocket to another without any increase in value. And in our county it would be unlikely that the Commissioners Court would authorize an outside lawyer to enforce these claims. And since the DA property is county property, not subject to writ of execution. It seems quite an exercise in futility. Not saying a clerk would not be tempted though.

Thanks Ray! It's an exercise in trying to show "increased revenue" in an effort to obtain raises, I suspect, regardless of where the money comes from the County or not. Unfortunately, my county sees DA forfeiture funds as "other money" rather than County money.

Who pays for the court costs on forfeiture amounts over $2,500 where the case is non-suited?

CCP 59.05(f) says: "On forfeiture to the State of an amount greater than $2,500, the clerk of the court ... is entitled to court costs ...."

If the case is non-suited then there is no forfeiture to the State, so no costs are awarded or owed.