Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-495

Opinion No. 495. Schools-School Districts-Honds-De· linquent School District Honds and Coupons-Interest on Delinquent School Bonds and Coupons -State Treasm"er. HELD: Under Chapter 147, Lam; of 1927, the state treasurer must charge at the rate of sL" per cent pel' annum on school bonds, amortization coupons and interest coupons on which payment is delayed, from the time they OPI~IO~S 01<' TIHJ A'L'TOH~I'JY GE~EHAL 33!.l llecome due until they are paid; and said rate must be charged irrespecti"e of the ra te of in terest on the bonds themselves. ::\iarch 17, 1934. Your letter to us of recent date is liS follows: "The State Treasurer's office char~­ (>s various school districts interest at the rnte of 60/0 on their delinquent coupons and bonds owned by the State of ::\Iontana. Interest. ae-cordin;;ly. has been char~ed on interest coupons Ilnd nmortizaNon f'oupons-that is, inter- est has been charged on hoth princi- pal and interest. "In view of the fact tlla t there has heen a qnestion raised as to our right in charging this interest, we would like to obtain ~-our Ol)inion on the fol- lowing: "1. Should interest he charged on delinquent bonds from the date of the last interest pa~'ment to date of pa~'­ ment of bonds? "2. Should interest be charged on :;mortization coupons as a whole, or only on the portion of the coupon rep- resenting principal'! "3. Should interest be charged on conpons that are interest on the prin- .;ipal ?" Section 29 of Chapter 147, Laws of ,W27, prol'ides that any and all install- ments of interest and principal on school bonds held by the state not promptly paid when due shall draw interest at the rate of six per cent per annnm from the date due until actually paid, irrespecth-e of the rate of inter- c~t on the honds themselves. By thIs statute the legislature un- :loubtedly intended that school bonds, amortization coupons and interest cou- pons, on which payment is delayed, should hear interest at the rate pre- sCl'ibed from the time they become due until they are paid. (Kalman v. Treas- ure County, 84 ::\'font. 285; Hoswell Drainage Dist., v. Parker, 53 Fed. (2d) 793; 33 C .• T. 205.) We are constrained, therefore, to an- ~I\'er the first [lI1d third questions pro- poundcd in the affirmative and to an- !5wer the second question propounded in this way: Interest should be charged on the full amount of the amortization coupon and not on the full amount thereof less the included interest.