Could Aiken County charge a local fee to file a creditor claim in probate court?

Plain-English summary

Aiken County's probate judge asked whether the county government could impose a local fee for filing a creditor claim against a deceased person's estate. The county schedule called for the probate court to collect fifteen dollars, and the judge understood the fee to be unique to Aiken. The Attorney General concluded that a fee schedule established by one county for its probate court would violate the state constitution's unified-judicial-system provision.

The opinion reasoned that probate courts were part of the statewide judicial system and that court fees within that system had to be established uniformly. It also noted statewide probate-fee statutes and earlier office opinions rejecting county-specific court fees. The answer concerned the described local fee, rather than the validity of all probate filing fees.

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 Aiken alone charge the creditor-claim filing fee described?
The AG's 2005 answer was no: a single county's probate fee schedule conflicted with statewide court-fee uniformity.

Did the opinion say probate courts were outside the statewide court system?
No. It expressly treated probate courts as part of South Carolina's unified judicial system.

Did the AG reject every fee for filing a probate claim?
No. He objected to a fee schedule set for one county, while noting the statewide provisions on probate-court fees.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion relied on the state constitution's unified judicial system, the statute placing probate courts within it, and a South Carolina Supreme Court decision requiring statewide uniformity for court fees.

Citations and references

The opinion cited Article V, Section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution and State ex rel. McLeod v. Crowe on uniform court fees.

Official title

Questioning the legality of the imposition of a fee by a county governing body for the filing of a creditor’s claim against the estate of an deceased individual.

Requester

The Honorable Sue H. Roe, Judge of Probate, Aiken County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-31-2005-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05august-31-Roe.pdf

Original opinion text

r

1

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER
ATIDRNEY GENERAL

August 31, 2005

I
I

The Honorable Sue H. Roe
Judge of Probate, Aiken County
Post Office Box 1576
Aiken, South Carolina 29802-1576
Dear Judge Roe:
In a letter to this office you questioned the legality of the imposition of a fee by a county

governing body for the filing of a creditor's claim against the estate of an deceased individual. You particularly referenced a fee schedule adopted by the county which provides for the collection by the probate court of a fifteen dollar fee for the filing of such a claim. It is my understanding that such fees are unique to Aiken County.

I

Article V, Section 1 of the State Constitution provides for a unified judicial system in this State. S.C. Code Ann.§ 14-23-1010 provides that probate courts are within the unified judicial system in this State. See also State ex rel. McLeod v. Court of Probate of Colleton County, 266 S.C. 279, 223 S.E.2d 166 (1976). The Supreme Court in its decision in State ex rel. McLeod v. Crowe, 272 S.C. 41, 249 S.E.2d 772 (1978) concluded that fees established for courts within the unified judicial system must be enacted on a uniform basis throughout the State. An opinion of this office dated August 20, 1986 determined that"(o)ne effect ofbringing the probate court under the uniform judicial system was to establish uniform operation of the courts." S.C. Code Ann.§§ 8-21-770 et seq. provide for the fees and costs payable to probate courts in this State. This office in an opinion dated March 14, 1989 concluded that a statute providing a fee schedule for the probate court of a particular county would violate Article V. Similarly, an opinion of this office dated August 6, 1986 similarly determined that legislation which would attempt to establish a fee schedule for marriage licenses issued in a particular county would violate Article V. Consistent with such, in my opinion, the establishment of a fee schedule for the probate court of a particular county by that county's governing body would violate Article V.

The Honorable Sue H. Roe
Page2
August 31, 2005

If there are any questions, please advise.

Sincerely,

I
I

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

<~/~

Rdbert~

Assistant Deputy Attorney General

~
I