Could Chester County replace its 1945 forfeited-land commission law by county ordinance in 1995?

Official title

Concerning whether Chester County Council may repeal Act No. 190 of 1945, relative solely to the Forfeited Land Commission in Chester County, so that Chester County may be governed by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-59-10 et seq. concerning forfeited land commissions generally.

Requester

The Honorable Greg Delleney, Jr., Member, House of Representatives

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether Chester County Council could replace a 1945 act governing only its forfeited-land commission. The 1995 informal opinion said the council had authority to modify that local act by ordinance and then follow the general law for forfeited-land commissions.

The author said the old act had not vanished automatically and would remain operative until council action. The letter read the state Home Rule Act and a South Carolina Supreme Court decision as permitting county councils, after the specified transition date, to change local laws concerning their own county operations.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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

Q: Did the 1945 local act expire on its own?
A: No. The letter said it remained in effect until the county enacted an ordinance changing it.

Q: Could the county council modify the act?
A: The opinion said yes, because the law concerned Chester County alone and the home-rule framework allowed alteration by ordinance.

Q: What law could govern after a change?
A: The letter said the county could follow the general statutory law on forfeited-land commissions.

Background and statutory framework

The letter compared Act No. 190 of 1945 with the Home Rule Act’s transition language and relied on Graham v. Creel, which involved county authority to alter an older local police-commission act.

Citations and references

• §12-59-10, as identified in the letter
• Graham v. Creel

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-7-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug7delleney.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 7, 1995

I
I

The Honorable Greg Delleney, Jr.
Member, House of Representatives
Post Office Box 808
Chester, South Carolina 29706
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Representative Delleney:
By your letter of July 19, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you have sought an opinion as to whether Chester County Council may repeal Act No. 190of1945, relative to the Forfeited Land Commission of Chester County, so that Chester County may be governed by S.C. Code Ann. §12-59-10 et seq. concerning forfeited land commissions generally.

r

i

A review of Act No. 190of1945 shows tharit is an act pertaining specifically and solely to the Forfeited Land Commission in Chester County, particularly as to the disposition of funds in the hands of the Commission and to further provide for the disposition of lands in the hands of the Commission and the method of sale of such lands. Clearly this is an act local in nature, amending §2850-4 of the 1942 Code of Laws, a Code section pertaining only to Chester County. Chester County Council would repeal or abolish this Act and as a result would be governed by the general law pertaining to forfeited land commissions, S.C. Code Ann. §12-59-10 et seq. (1976). Relevant to your inquiry is an uncodified portion of Section 3 of Act No. 283 of 1975, the Home Rule Act, which provides in part: All operations, agencies and offices of county government, appropriations and laws related thereto in effect on the date the change in form becomes effective shall remain in full force and effect until otherwise RE!BERT

c. DL:\1'1S Bl'ilDl:\G

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COU:MBIA.

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Greg Delleney
Page 2
August 7, 1995
implemented by ordinance of the council pursuant to this act. Provided, however, that county councils shall not enact ordinances in conflict with existing law relating to their respective counties and all such laws shall remain in full force and effect until repealed by the General Assembly, or until January 1, 1980, whichever time is sooner ....

l
I
I

I
b
I

r

I have not located an act of the General Assembly repealing Act No. 190 of 1945. Therefore, unless and until Chester County Council should take some action respecting this local law, it would remain in force and effect. As of January 1, 1980, Chester County Council would have the authority to adopt an ordinance in conflict with this Act since it relates solely to operations of only Chester County. In this regard, the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Creel, 289 S.C. 165, 345 S.E.2d 717 (1986), is particularly helpful. Horry County had a special law establishing the Horry County Police Commission in effect when its form of home rule government was adopted. After Januaty 1, 1980, Horry County Council modified the act of the General Assembly and abolished the Police Commission. An argument was made that the local legislation lapsed as of Januaty 1, 1980, but the court decided that point negatively, stating that the local law remained in effect until Horry County enacted an ordinance abolishing the Police Commission and repealing the act of the General Assembly. The situation is similar to the issue you have raised, in that the Supreme Court concluded that after Januaty 1, 1980, Horry County Council had the authorization to modify the local law in question by way of an ordinance. Because Act No. 190 of 1945 is an act affecting operations of Chester County alone, as well as the express language of Section 3 of the Home Rule Act as interpreted in Graham v. Creel, supra, I am of the opinion that Chester County Council would have the necessaty authority to modify, by ordinance, the provisions of Act No. 190 of 1945 and to follow general statutoty law as to forfeited land commissions. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I trust that the foregoing has satisfactorily responded to your inquity and that you will advise if clarification or additional assistance should be necessary.

The Honorable Greg Delleney
Page 3
August 7, 1995
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,

I
I
I

i
~

I

r
t

~.fJ-f~
Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General