Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-288

Opinion No. 288. County Lands-Contracts For Sale on Deferred Payments-Interest Rate -County Commissioners. HELD: The board of county com- missioners has no power to reduce the interest rate on contracts for the sale of county lands on deferred pay- ments, where the contracts were made under authority of Chapter 162, Laws of 1929. Mr. P. R. Heily County Attorney Columbus, Montana ",lay 22, 1936. You ask for an interpretation of Section 2235, R. C. M. 1921, as amend- ed by Chapter 162, Laws of Montana, 1929, and Chapter 33 of the Extraor- dinary Session Laws of 1933-34. This is a statute in relation to the sale of lands by county commission- ers. By the terms of the 1929 statute, deferred payments draw interest at the rate of 6% per annum. As to lands sold under the authority of Chapter 33, Extraordinary Session, 1933-34, deferred payments bear in- terest at the rate of 4% per annum. In your inquiry you advise us that parties who have purchased lands under the authority of the 1929 stat- ute and whose deferred payments bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum, have requested the county commissioners to modify their con- tracts to the extent of accepting pay- ments with interest at the rate of 4% per annum as provided in the latter statute. You inquire as to the right of the county commissioners to reduce the interest rates on these contracts entered into under the 1929 statute, from 6% per annum to 4% per an- num. You are advised that as to con- tracts entered into under and by vir- tue of the 1929 statute same must comply with the terms of that stat- ute. The contracts entered into under that statute are not affected by an amendment of the statute which au- thorizes contracts of a different char- 296 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL acter and a different rate of interest in relation to subsequent transactions. The contract entered into under the prior statute is in no manner affected by the subsequent amendment of such statute. The subsequent statute con- tains no language from which it might be inferred that it was the in- tent of the legislature to modify con- tracts already in existence. It is true that claims of the appli- cants who desire to secure concessions as to interest rates have great equity and it may be that the legislature has power to reduce the interest rates as to contracts already in existence. However, no such power is given by the subsequent statute and we must, therefore, conclude that there is no authority in the board of county com- missioners to alter said contracts or to change the interest rate upon con- tracts already in existence from 6% per annum to 4% per annum.