Could a South Carolina register stamp only the first page of an original recorded document in 2005?

Plain-English summary

In 2005, Berkeley County’s register of deeds asked whether she could stamp the book and page number only on the first page of an original document while adding page numbers to the scanned image. The Attorney General said he knew of no state statute directly answering the question. Because the proposed method departed from the office’s existing practice, he recommended continuing to mark every page of the original unless legislation specifically authorized a change.

The AG described the register’s recording duties as largely ministerial and prescribed by law. His letter gave a recommendation on the proposed change, not a holding that an identified statute expressly required a stamp on each page.

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

Did the AG approve stamping only the first page of the original?
No. He recommended maintaining the existing every-page practice absent legislation authorizing a different one.

Did the scanned copy’s digital page numbers resolve the concern?
The register proposed that feature, but the AG still recommended against changing the original-document stamping practice.

Did the opinion identify a statute that expressly required every page to be stamped?
No. The AG said he was unaware of a statute specifically addressing the question and based his recommendation on the register’s prescribed duties and the proposed departure from current practice.

Background and statutory framework

The question arose because the proposed scanned image would show recording information on every page while the original would bear the stamp only on its first page. The AG described public recording duties as ministerial and advised no change without specific legislation.

Citations and references

The opinion cited earlier AG opinions on the register’s ministerial recording duties but no statute directly deciding the page-stamping question.

Official title

Questioning whether when recoding an original document, would it be permissible to validate and stamp with the book and page number only the first page of the document.

Requester

The Honorable Cynthia Forte, Register of Deeds, Berkeley County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-10-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05feb10-Forte.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY Mc:MA.sTER
AlTORNEY GENERAL

February 10, 2005

l
I
I

The Honorable Cynthia Forte
Register of Deeds, Berkeley County
223 North Live Oak Drive
Moncks Comer, South Carolina 29461
Dear Ms. Forte:

In a letter to this office you questioned whether when recording an original document, would it be permissible to validate and stamp with the book and page number only the first page of the document. For instance, you indicated that on the first page of the original document, the book and page number could be read. However, when scanning the document, the remaining page numbers would be digitized onto the scanned image. You indicated that at that point, the image appearing on a computer screen as well as any printed images would reflect recording information on all pages. You have questioned whether such practice would be acceptable since the original document would not match exactly the recorded copy since only the original document would bear the book and page number. Based upon your letter, I am assuming that the present practice in your office is for all pages of an original document to reflect the appropriate book and page number and the procedure whereby only the first page would reflect such would be a departure from the present practice.

I

Please be advised that I am unaware of any State statute specifically commenting on the question you raised. Generally, the register ofdeeds when performing her duties pursuant to the recording statutes should be considered a ministerial officer whose duties are absolute and prescribed by law. Ops. Atty. Gen. dated September 29, 1983 and January 20, 1982. An opinion of this office dated October 27, 1977 stated that as to a clerk of court acting as register of mesne conveyances or the register of mesne conveyances herself, "(t)he duties of said officer with respect to the maintenance ofpublic recordation ofdeeds, mortgages, etc. is largely perfunctory, involving little discretion in the exercise thereof. Such duties are usually prescribed by statute or court rules." Inasmuch as it is my understanding that the procedure suggested by you would be a change from the present procedure, it is my

.7

l£

R~~tDaoos BUILDING • Posr OmcE Box 11549 •

~IAIE -~JJiu

COlVMBlA ,

s.c. 292 I 1-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACS!Mll.E: 803-253-6283

f

'

The Honorable Cynthia Forte
Page2
February 10, 2005

recommendation that there be no deviation from the present procedure utilized in recording an original document in the absence of specific legislation authorizing such. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours,

I
I

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

M

I

r
I

~I~
lOlJert

D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General