Could a South Carolina town annex land across a county line?

Plain-English summary

A state representative asked whether a South Carolina municipality could annex property across a county line. The 2000 informal opinion did not decide a specific annexation. It quoted a constitutional provision barring county lines from being established through an incorporated city or town, then reported earlier AG opinions finding no statute authorizing a municipality to annex land in another county. Those opinions called the procedure doubtful or “extremely doubtful.”

The letter said the earlier opinions remained the office's view because it had not found them clearly wrong or superseded by changed law. It also emphasized that annexations involve factual questions an AG opinion cannot resolve; a court would have to rule on the legality of any particular boundary change.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 AG declare every cross-county annexation invalid?
A: No. It repeated earlier opinions expressing strong doubt and said a court must decide a particular annexation.

Q: What concerned the office about annexation across county lines?
A: The letter cited a constitutional county-line provision and earlier opinions that found no statute specifically authorizing the procedure.

Q: Did the letter decide the facts of a proposed annexation?
A: No. It said factual annexation issues were beyond an AG opinion and supplied only its existing legal research.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted Article VII, § 14 of the South Carolina Constitution and relied on earlier office opinions from 1973, 1983 and 1984. It gave no new boundary test and left any specific application to a court.

Citations and references

• Article VII, § 14 of the South Carolina Constitution, quoted in the letter.

Official title

Regarding a municipality’s ability to annex property across county lines.

Requester

The Honorable Annette Young-Brickell, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-7-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00aug7brickell.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

August 7, 2000

The Honorable Annette Young-Brickell
Member, House of Representatives
410 Barfield Road
Summerville, SC 29485

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Representative Young-Brickell:
By your letter of June 23, 2000, you have asked for this Office's opinion regarding a municipality's ability to annex property across county lines. At the outset, I must note that annexations raise numerous factual questions that cannot be resolved by an opinion of the Attorney General. See, Op. Any. Gen., December 12, 1983. Thus, while only a court of competent jurisdiction may rule upon the legality of specific annexations, I can offer the following legal research for your use. As you know, Article VII, § 14 of the South Carolina Constitution provides, "[h ]ereafter no County lines shall be so established as to pass through any incorporated city or town of this State." Previous opinions addressing this provision have stated, "there is no statute which authorizes a municipality annexing land in another county and that, therefore, there would be great doubt as to whether or not this procedure would be valid." See, Ops. Afty. Gen., June 22, 1984 and October 21, 1983 (enclosed). Moreover, in an opinion dated March 16, .1973 (enclosed), Attorney General Daniel McLeod concluded that a municipality's authority to extend its boundaries into adjacent boundaries is ..'extremely doubtful" and that "'there is no statute specifically authorizing this procedure." Since prior opinions are not overruled unless found to be clearly erroneous or based upon applicable law which has since changed, these earlier decisions continue to represent the opinion of this Office. This letter is an informal op~nion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific

!)
.

_.,

R E~IB ERT c. DENNIS BLILDING
, ,f
. ~' , /7'7";-;
. . .,. ; ,

• -I' /}_ ,

v.-:,,

•

POST OFFICE Box l l549

•

C OL UMBIA , S.C

29211 - 1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803 -7 3+.3')70

•

FACS IMILE : SOJ- 25 3-628 3

The Honorable Annette Young-Brickell
Page2
August 7, 2000
questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With best personal regards, I am Sincerely yours,

Zeb C. Williams, III
Deputy Attorney General
ZCW/an
enclosures