On February 12, 2008, the Supreme Court issued an Order Appointing Ancillary Task Force– ostensibly to clarify conflicting rules. The order makes specific reference to Rule 103, and includes a request that a report and recommendations be provided to the court no later than October 31, 2008. The report and recommendations have not been forthcoming. Frankly, I am confused as to why a “task force” was even necessary.
It is instructive to note that the Code Construction Act applies to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re. Walkup, 122 S.W.3d 215, 217. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.026 (b) states:
“If the conflict between the general provision and the special provision or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.”
The amended Rule 103 is the later enactment, and the manifest intention of it is to allow private process servers to serve a wide variety of process including writs. The code is precisely applicable to the matter before the task force, and it is my hope that it be considered in any recommendation.
I strongly urge all interested parties to contact the chair and other members of the task force, and encourage them to recommend to the court language clarifying 103 to mean what it says, or [better] that 663 includes persons authorized under 103. I consider the matter urgent, and until it is laid to rest we will continue to be challenged by garnishees or debtors, and passed over by the uninformed resulting in needless economic loss.
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Bill_81/5_Conference/Article_4_RC.pdf (Page 2, #7)
The SC is looking to have placed in HB1 and SB1 next session, a budge for $9000 for travel reimbursement for the Ancillary Proceeding Task Force.
The order creating the Ancillary Proceeding Task Force charged them with the duty to make their recommendations to the Supreme Court no later than October 31, 2008,(http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/08/08901000.pdf) on language to make contemporary the Rules governing service of injunctions (Section VI of the TRCP ONLY). Apparently, no recommendations have yet been made, meaning the Task Force failed in its created function. So why is the SC seeking a travel reimbursement budget for a committee that is in existence two years past its charge?
Has the Court issued any secondary miscellaneous dockets extending the time and duty of this committee’s function? If not, I think the Appropriations Committee members need to see the Order creating the task force so they can see the Court is seeking funding for a committee that no longer has a function.
I also think that process servers need to take the bull by the horns and get a bill passed that protects our right to serve civil process, including writs of garnishment. Don’t rely on the TPSA to do this. Their legislative objective seems always to be geared toward benefitting the Court, not process servers.
Comment – 2005 {Amendments to Rules 103 and 536(a)}
Subsection (a) is amended to clarify that it applies to service of all process and to include among the persons authorized to effect service those who meet certification requirements promulgated by the Supreme Court