The opinion
TFIEA~ORNEYGENERAT~
OF TEXAS
Au-. TEXAS w3n1
August 11. 1975
The Honorable Leonard M. Riggs Opinion No. H- 664
Chairman
Texas State Board of Landscape Architects Re: Date at which a landscape
320 Sam Houston State Office Building architect may no longer practice
Austin, Texas 78701 without renewing his license.
Dear Mr. Riggs:
You have requested OUT opinion regarding the date at which a landscape
architect may no longer practice without renewing his license.
The practice of landscape architecture is regulated by article 249c,
V. T. C. S. Section 7 thereof provides as follows:
All certificates of registration shall expire on the
31st day of August of each year, following their
issuance or renewal and shall become invalid on that
date unless renewed. It shall be the duty of the sec-
retary of the board to notify every person registered
under this Act of that date of expiration of his certificate
and the amount of the fee that shall be required for its
renewal for one year; such notice shall be mailed at least
one month in advance of the date of the expiration of said
certificate. Renewal may be effected at any time during
the month of July or August of each year by payment of
the fee as prescribed and set by the board. The fee for
landscape architect’s certificate shall be not less than
$10 nor more than $50. The fee for a landscape irrigator’s
certificate shall be not more than $100. Failure on the part
of any registrant to renew his certificate annually, and by
not later than August 31st, as required above shall not de-
prive such person of the right of renewal, but the fee to be
paid for the renewal of a certificate after August 31st shall
be increased 10 percent for each month or fraction of a
month that renewal payment is delayed; and provided further,
that if such failure to renew shall continue for more than one
year after the date of expiration of the registration certificate,
the applicant must reapply for registration and must qualify
under Section 5 of this Act. All renewal certificates shall
carry the same registration number as the original certificate.
You ask whether a landscape architect may continue to practice his profession
after expiration of his license on August 31.
p. 2908
- .
The Honorable Leonard M. Riggs - Page 2 (H-664)
Section 5 of article 249~ provides that:
. . . no person shall represent himself
or practice in any manner as a landscape
architect, as defined herein, unless such
person shall be licensed as provided here-
& (emphasis added). -
Section 9 establishes penalties for representing oneself as a landscape architect
“without being registered or exempted in accordance with the provisions of” the
Act.
In our view, the statute clearly prohibits a person from practicing
landscape architecture after the expiration of his license. Where the language of
a statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect as written. Gately v.
Humphrey, 254 S. W. 2d 98, 100 (Tex.Sup 1952). It seems well established that:
a license terminates by lapse of time on
the date which is fixed by statute or or-
dinance or by the licensing authorities
acting within their statutory powers, and
the licensee may exercise the rights and
priviliges granted by the license only for
the term specified. 53 C. J.S., Licenses
$43, at 646.
Furthermore, a prior expired license ” confers no rights upon the licensee, ”
except “where by statute it entitles him to a renewal upon compliance with specified
conditions. ” State ex rel. Interstate Air-Part
Metropolitanmm’n, 25 N. W. 2d 718
State ex rel. Gopher Sales Co. v. City of Austin, 75 N. W. 2d 748 (Minn. 1956).
InM.M.M., Inc. v. Mitchell, 265 S. W.2d 584 (Tex.Sup. 1954). the
Supreme Court considered:
whether an engineer, who has been issued
an original certificate . . . is yet illegally
practicing when he contracts to and does
render engineering services during a year
for which he has failed to pay his annual
certificate renewal fee as required . . . .
Even though an engineer is permitted to renew his license at any time after its ex-
piration date, he is nevertheless in violation of the law if he practices before effect-
ing such renewal to the extent that any contract performed by him during that period
is unenforceable. 265 S. W. 2d at 586. The Supreme Court stated that the purpose
p. 2909
I -h .
The Honorable Leonard M. Riggs - Page 3 (H-664)
or requiring renewal is:
both to supply an obviously important
part of the revenues on which the whole
operation of the law depends and to keep
an up to date record of practicing engi-
neers. Unless there is some substantial
penalty to compel compliance, the bur-
den of supporting the Board falls entirely
on those who comply while the others get
the benefits of the law but evade its obli-
gations . . . . a construction of an act for
the protection of life and health at an occasion-
al loss to those, who somehow fail to carry
its almost insignificant burdens for main-
taining their high profession, also has its
equitable appeal. 265 S. W. 2d at 587.
And see Mabry v. Priester, 338 S. W. 2d 704, 706 (Tex. Sup. 1960). But cf.
Hill v. State, 393 S. W. 2d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965).
We perceive no distinction between the situations described in M. M. hf.,
Inc. v. Mitchell and the failure of a landscape architect to renew his license as re-
quired by article 249~. It is therefore our opinion that a landscape architect who
holds an expired license may not practice his profession without first renewing such
license.
SUMMARY
A landscape architect may not practice his
profession after August 31 of each year un-
less he renews his license.
Very truly yours,
A ,/
u Attorney General of Texas
Opinion Committee -