Did an out-of-county property bail bond need a second clerk’s approval in South Carolina?

Plain-English summary

Court administration asked whether an accommodations bondsman using property in one county for a bond pending in another needed approval from both counties’ clerks. In 1996, the AG found no requirement for the second clerk to countersign. The clerk where the property was located could examine local records to evaluate its ownership, value, and marketability. A clerk in the bond county would lack the same basis to assess net worth.

The opinion agreed that once the property-county clerk had valued the property, counter-approval from the bond-county clerk appeared unnecessary. It addressed that approval question, not every step needed to accept a particular bond.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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 both county clerks have to approve the property bond?

The AG found no statute requiring counter-approval by the clerk in the county where the bond was pending.

Which clerk could evaluate the property’s value?

The opinion identified the clerk in the county where the property was located, because that office had access to the relevant local documentation.

Did the AG eliminate the need to show property value?

No. It discussed the statutory need for satisfactory evidence of ownership, value, and marketability for the official taking the bond.

Background and legal framework

The question concerned an accommodations bondsman using real estate across county lines. The AG considered Section 38-53-10 and its requirement that the property adequately secure the bond. The opinion separated the property assessment from a duplicative approval by a clerk who could not independently determine net value from their county’s records.

Citations

• Section 38-53-10.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-5-1996-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96feb5mccurdy.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

February 5, 1996

I

Robert L. Mccurdy, Esquire
South Carolina Court Administration
Post Office Box 50447
Columbia, South Carolina 29250
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Mccurdy:
In a letter to this Off ice you questioned whether the Bail Bond Reform Act as codified in s.c. Code Sections 38-53-10 et seq. requires resident clerks of court to countersign property bond approvals from non-resident clerks. You particularly referenced an accommodations bondsman who attempts to use real property located in one county to cover a bond in another county. I am unaware of any provision in the referenced legislation or in any other relevant provision which specifically requires such counter-approval. As you pointed out, Section 38-53-10 { 1) requires that an accommodation bondsman provide satisfactory evidence of ownership, value, and marketability of property to satisfy the official taking the bond that the property will assure the full amount of the bond. Such a determination would be made typically by the clerk of the county where the property is located based upon the documentation in that county as to the property's net value. A clerk in the county where the bond is pending would have no means to consider the property's net worth. As a result, any approval by that clerk would be meaningless. Therefore, I am in agreement with your conclusion that after property has been valued by the clerk of court in the county of location, the counter-approval by the clerk of the county where the bond is pending appears unnecessary. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question

RI '!Bf f<T

c Di'"" 81 111 ll'>ii

•

Posr Oi-FICE Box 11549

•

CoLDIBIA, S.C

29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-.'970

•

FACSl~111 E: RO:l-253-628~

Robert L. Mccurdy
Page 2

February 5, 1996

asked.
It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General, nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. Sincerely,

a~ rf( f!.-lJ,_,___

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

I

CHR/fg