Could a Greenville register of deeds certify a deed copy someone printed from online records?

Plain-English summary

Greenville County’s register of deeds had put scanned recorded documents online and received requests to certify copies that members of the public printed elsewhere. The AG said the office should not certify those outside-made copies. He read the statute’s direction that the register “give a certified copy” and receive the copy fee as authorizing certification of copies produced by the office itself.

The opinion did not question the office’s ability to give certified copies of writings recorded there. Its narrow issue was whether certification could be attached to a copy produced outside the office from online images.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could the register certify an internet printout made by someone else?
The AG said no under the provision he examined. He read the office’s duty to give a certified copy as involving a copy made directly through the office.

Could the register still provide a certified copy of a recorded deed?
Yes. The statute quoted in the opinion required the register or deputy to give a certified copy of a recorded writing on application, subject to the stated fee terms.

Did the statute expressly discuss outside online printouts?
No. The AG said the legislature had not addressed certification of copies made outside the office.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion interpreted S.C. Code Ann. § 30-5-20, which governed certified copies issued by a register of deeds. It used the statutory language about giving a copy and receiving payment to distinguish office-produced copies from outside printouts.

Citations and references

The original text says the office “should only certify those copies made directly from your office.”

Official title

Questioning whether the Register of Deeds may certify copies of documents that have been recorded in the Register of Deeds office which are made outside of your office from your online records.

Requester

The Honorable Timothy L. Nanney, Register of Deeds, Greenville County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-13-2005-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05apr13nanney2.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY Mc.MASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

I

April 13, 2005

The Honorable Timothy L. Nanney
Register of Deeds, Greenville County
County Square
301 University Ridge, Suite 1300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Dear Mr. Nanney:

Jn a letter to this office you referenced the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 30-5-20 (Supp. 2004) which state:

L

The register of deeds, or his deputy, shall be required, on application, to give a certified copy of any writing recorded in his office, the fees for such copy being first paid in advance, if required or tendered, as the case may be. If the register or his deputy shall furnish an incorrect transcript of any deed recorded, he shall forfeit and pay to the party damages that may accrue in consequence thereof. You indicated that your office is scanning the documents filed in your office and the digitized images are on the internet. You have now had requests from the public to certify copies made from the onJine records. You have questioned whether your office may certify copies of documents that have been recorded in the Register of Deeds office which are made outside of your office from your online records. When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 ( 1987). Typica11y, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971 ). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991). Statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). Any ambiguity in a statute should be resolved in favor of a just, equitable, and beneficial operation of the law. City of Sumter Police Dep't v. One

/J

~,,. •. .•..L

R.E~ERT,C.
~s
·"-" . _,

8Ufil)ING

•

Posr OFFICE Box 11549 •

CoLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMll.E: 803·253-6283

The Honorable Timothy L. Nanney
Page2
April 13, 2005

(1) 1992 Blue Mazda Truck, 330 S.C. 371, 498 S.E.2d 894 (Ct.App. 1998). The canon of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" or "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," which holds that "to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative," may be used as guidance in construing a statute. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E. 2d 578 (2000).

I
I

In my opinion, your office should not certify copies of documents that are made outside of your office from on-line records. The General Assembly has expressly provided that your office "shall be required, on application, to give a certified copy of any writing recorded in his office, the fees for such copy being first paid in advance, if required or tendered, as the case may be." It is my opinion that the language of the statute, especially the provisions that your office "give a certified copy" and receive payment for such copy, indicates that you should only certify those copies made directly from your office. The expression of such intent implies the exclusion of an interpretation that certification be made of copies made outside your office from the internet. No particular reference is made to the certification of a copy made outside the office. Inasmuch as it does not appear that the General Assembly has chosen to address the certification of copies made outside your office, this office would not be in a position to authorize such certification. If there are any questions, please advise.

Sincerely,

I
F"

!

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

/_~~\~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General