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.
