Which South Carolina assessment percentages applied when a court fine was paid in installments?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, South Carolina's State Treasurer asked how to reconcile court-assessment percentages with an older statute's allocations for fines paid in installments. An assistant deputy attorney general concluded that the newer, court-specific assessment provisions controlled the percentages assigned to assessments from installment payments. The installment statute should be applied consistently with those newer provisions.

The opinion explained that the installment percentages had originally been closer to the assessment rates, but later amendments changed the general-sessions, magistrate, and municipal rates without matching changes to the installment section. It read the more recent and more specific legislative choices as governing. For money already allocated differently, the author did not prescribe recovery; he said the General Assembly might consider whether any action was needed. The letter identified itself as an informal opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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 opinion apply the old installment-assessment percentages without adjustment? A: No. It concluded that the later court-specific percentages controlled and that the installment provision should be read consistently with them.

Q: Why did the statutes show different percentages?
A: The opinion traced later amendments to the assessment provisions while the installment allocations had not been changed to match them.

Q: Did the opinion order courts to recover earlier allocations? A: No. It suggested the General Assembly consider whether any action should be taken about money previously allocated differently.

Background and legal framework

The request compared assessment provisions for three court types with the installment-payment statute. The opinion used legislative history and rules for reconciling conflicting provisions: it found the more recent, more specific assessment percentages expressed the legislature's controlling choice. Its answer concerned how to read the statutes as they stood in 1999.

Citations and references

• § 14-1-209: installment-payment allocation provision quoted in the opinion.
• §§14-1-206 and 14-1-207 and §14-1-208: court-specific assessment provisions discussed in the opinion.

Official title

Asking whether the provisions for one hundred percent assessments on fines in §§ 14-1-206 and 14-1-207 (Supp. 1998) and the 74 percent assessment in § 14-1-208 (Supp. 1998) are controlling as to the provisions in § 14-1-209 (Supp. 1998) for assessments on fines paid in installments.

Requester

The Honorable Grady L. Patterson, Jr., State Treasurer, Wade Hampton State Office Building

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-3-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/1999/12/99dec-3-patterson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

December 3, 1999

The Honorable Grady L. Patterson, Jr.
State Treasurer
Wade Hampton State Office Building
Hand Delivery

Dear Mr. Patterson:
You have asked whether the provisions for one hundred percent assessments on fines in
§§14-1-206 and 14-1-207 (Supp. 1998) and the 74 percent assessment in §14-1-208 (Supp. 1998) are controlling as to the provisions in § 14-1-209 (Supp. 1998) for assessments on fines paid in installments. Sections 14-1-206 through 14-1-208 are controlling as to § 14-1-209 for the reasons discussed below. Section l 4-l-206(A) contains the following provisions as to this matter for general sessions court which are identical to those in §14-1-207 (A) for magistrate's court:
... a person who is convicted of, pleads guilty or no lo contendere to, or forfeits bond for an offense tried in general sessions court must pay an amount equal to l 00 percent of the fine imposed as an assessment.. .. Similar provisions set a 74 percent assessment for municipal court. ~I 4-1-208( A). Section I 4-1-209 now provides as follows: (A) If a payment for a fine and assessment levied in the circuit court is made in

installments. the clerk of court must treat sixty-two percent of each installment as payment for a fine and distribute it pursuant to Section 14- 1-205 and thirty-eight percent of each installment as payment for an assessment and distribute it pursuant to Section I 4-1-206.

~~l)t · y~· - l'r1~1 ( )1.1- 11 · r· H11.\ ll'i-1 1
1

The Honorable Grady L. Patterson, Jr.

December 3, 1999
Page 2

(B) If a payment for a fine and assessment levied in the magistrate's court is made in installments, the magistrate must treat 4 7 percent of each installment as payment for an assessment and distribute it pursuant to Section 14-1-207. (C) If a payment for a fine and assessment levied in the municipal court is made in installments, the municipal court judge must treat 40 percent of each installment as payment for an assessment and distribute it pursuant to Section 14- 1-208.

I
I

These allocations under§ 14-1-209 differ markedly from those under§§ 14-1-206 through 14-1-208. 1 The history of these provisions provides some guidance as to their meaning. According to the annotated history of these provisions in the code,§§ 14-1-206 through 14-1209 originated with Act 497, Part II§ 36, 1994 S.C. Acts 5708. Under that Act. the assessments in
§§ 14- 1-206 and 14-1-209 were consistent as to circuit courts with a 62 percent assessment in §206 and a 38 percent withholding from installment payments under §209 2• The provisions for magistrate's court were also similar under §§207 and 209 in 1994. 3 For reasons not readily apparent. the percentages in §209 differed from those for municipal courts in §208.~ A 1996 law made changes to §§206 and 209 such as changing the reference from circuit court to general sessions, but the Act did not alter the percentages allocated thereunder for assessments. Act No. 292, 1996 S.C. Acts 1961. No other changes have been made in §209 since 1996 but the assessments have been changed since then in the other statutes. 1

(JP!
I

With a 100 percent assessment under §§206 and 207, the assessments represent 50 percent of the total of the fine and the assessments, but §209. respectively, allocates 38 percent and 4 7 percent of installment payments to assessments in general sessions courts and magistrates courts. Section 208 allocates 42.5 percent of the total of the fine and the assessment (74% assessment divided by total of 100% fine and 74 % assessment) to assessments in municipal court whereas §209 allocates 40 percent of installment payments as an assessment in municipal court. 2

A 62 percent assessment under §206 equals 38.3 percent of the total of the fine and the assessment (62 % assessment divided by total of 100% fine plus 62°1(> assessment). 3

The 88 percent assessment under §207 when divided by the 188 percent total of the fine and assessment thereunder yielded a percentage of the total of 46.8 \vhich approximated the 4 7 percent allocation to assessments from installment payments under§ 209. The 52 percent assessment under §208 when divided by the 152 percent total of the fine and assessment thereunder yielded a percentage of the total of 34.2 which \vas less than the -J.O percent allocation to assessments from installment payments under§ 209. 4

The Honorable Grady L. Patterson, Jr.
December 3, 1999
Page 3

f

l

I
I

A 1997 amendment to §§206 and 207 changed previous assessments of 62 percent for general sessions court and 88 percent for magistrates court to the present I 00 percent for both courts. Act No. 141§§4-5, 1997 S. C. Acts 742-744. The 1997 lawchanged the assessment for municipal court under §208 from 52 to 64 percent which was slightly less than the 40% allocation of installment payments to assessments for the those courts under §209. Id. at§ 6, p. 746. 5 The 1998 amendment upped the percentage to the present 74 percent which, as noted, widened the difference between §§208 and 209 as to municipal courts. Act No. 434§12, 1998 S.C. Acts 3232. The above summary shows that §209 was initially consistent with percentages for assessments for circuit and magistrates courts, but that subsequent provisions in §§206 and 207 created different assessments thereunder for those courts. Municipal court provisions under §208 have never been consistent with §209 except in 1997 when the figures were close. The following rules of construction are applicable here: In the construction of statutes, the dominant factor is the intent, not the language of the legislature. Abell v. Bell, 229 SC 1, 91SE.2d5../8 ( 1956). A statute must be construed in light of its intended purposes, and, if such purpose can be reasonably discovered from its language, the purpose will prevail over the literal import of the statute. Id. Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District v. City ofSpartanburg, 283 SC 67, 7../, 321 SE. 2d 258, 262 (1984).

"General and specific statues should be read together and harmonized if possible But to the extent of any conflict between the two the special statute must prevail." Criterion Insurance Co. v. Hoffman, 258 SC 282, 188 SE. 2d ../59 (/972): Ops. Atty. Gen. ( 7 -1285).

The last passed statute will prevail if the statutes are incapable of any reasonable reconcilement. Yahnis Coastal, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery, 295 SC 2./3, 368 S.E. 2d 6..f (/988).

5

The 64 percent assessment under §208, when divided by the 16.f percent total of the fine and assessment thereunder, yielded a percentage of the total of 39 percent which was slightly less than the 40 percent allocation to assessments from installment payments under § 209.

The Honorable Grady L. Patterson, Jr.

December 3, 1999
Page 4

I
I

Applying these rules to the instant matter shows a legislative intent to make §209 consistent with §§206, 207 and 208 at various times during their legislative history. These statutes are now no longer consistent with §209 as to their percentage allocations, and the more recently passed percentage allocations in §§206, 207 and 208 are specific to the courts therein. In addition, §§206. 207 and 208 each contain detailed provisions as to how the assessments are to be allocated among various programs. The more recent and more specific expression oflegislative intent in §§206, 207 and 208 as to assessment percentages and earlier attempts by the legislature to make those provisions consistent with §209 indicates a legislative intent that the percentages in §§206, 207 and 208 should be controlling as to the percentages allocated to assessments from installment payments under §209. In other words, §209 should be applied consistently with §§206, 207 and 208 with the latter statutes being controlling as to the percentages. You have also asked whether an attempt should be made to recover any monies that were not allocated in accordance with the above conclusions. Because the General Assembly passed the above legislation and may wish to clarify the above provisions, the legislature may want to consider the issue of what if any action should be taken as to prior allocations. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Lt

I