In 1995, an Arkansas man won the Texas Lottery to the tune of $8.9 million bucks. The winnings paid out in annual installments of $450,000 (X 20). At the time he won, Texas lottery laws prohibited the assignment of winnings (so much for the late night commercials for lump sum payments). But, in 1999, the Texas Legislature changed the law, but for a reason still unknown to the author of the legislation -- prohibited the assignment of the last two payments. During the same session that the Legislature prohibited the assignment of the last two payments from lottery winnings, it passed another law that invalidates any law restricting the assignment of an account.
One might forgive the Legislature for passing a law in one session that obviously conflicts with a law previously passed. But...during the SAME SESSION? My suspicion that legislators rarely bother to read what they are voting on is gaining ground. The conflict between the laws is now the subject of an appeal before the Austin Court of Appeals, with the Lottery Commission claiming that their restrictive assignment provision is better than the UCC provision prohibiting restrictions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
No wonder the canons of construction are such a puzzle. We look at the statutory words to find the expressed legislative intent, but the legislators neither have a collective intent nor have read the words supposed to reflect the intent they don't have.
Post a Comment