Could Aiken County stop getting the auditor endorsement before recording scanned deeds?

Plain-English summary

Aiken County's recording office had begun scanning deeds into a new imaging system. The requester asked whether it could dispense with the county auditor's stamp, which she said served no purpose under the new process. The AG read two statutes requiring the auditor's endorsement that a real-property conveyance had been entered in the auditor's office before the deed was recorded.

The AG concluded that the endorsement remained required. Where the auditor's stamp was the usual way to show it, the stamping practice had to continue. The new imaging workflow did not change the statutory sequence. The opinion did not turn on whether other counties had stopped using a stamp.

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

Could scanning a deed replace the auditor endorsement?
The AG said no. Scanning and indexing did not displace the statutory requirement for endorsement before recording.

Did the opinion require a stamp in every possible recording system?
It said the endorsement was required and, if that endorsement was typically shown by a stamp, that practice must continue. Its answer addressed Aiken County's described system.

Why did the auditor appear in the deed-recording process?
The opinion quoted provisions requiring the auditor to record real-property conveyances in the auditor's office and endorse the deed before the recording office placed it on record.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied the plain text of the two endorsement statutes to the new computer and imaging process. It rejected an operational reason for waiving a step that the statutes still expressly required.

Citations and references

The letter quoted S.C. Code Ann. § 30-5-80 and S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-260; its footnote also mentioned S.C. Code Ann.§ 8-21-130.

Official title

Regarding waiving the required auditor’s stamp for scanned documents.

Requester

The Honorable Judith V. Warner, Registrar of Mesne Conveyance

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-13-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05july-13-Warner.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HF.NRv McMAsTER
ATrORNEY GENERAL

July 13, 2005

The Honorable Judith V. Warner
Registrar ofMesne Conveyance
82 8 Richland A venue West
Aiken, South Carolina 29801

I

Dear Ms. W amer:
In a letter to this office you indicated that the Registrar ofMesne Conveyance office in Aileen County implemented a new computer/imaging system in June, 2005. Such system requires that documents brought in for recording be scanned into a computer. The image is then immediately available. You indicated that the Aiken County Auditor's office stamps all deeds that have been recorded in the RMC office. Under the new system, the Assessor's office will continue to transfer the property ownership for tax purposes after the document has been scanned into the computer and the permanent indexing is complete. l

W

You indicated that it is your information that several counties no longer required the county auditor's stamp on the recorded deeds. According to your letter, the auditor's stamp serves no purpose in your county and you would like for the requirement for the auditor's stamp to be waived. Two statutory provisions are particularly relevant to your inquiry. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 30-5-80,

~fi

m1.

Before any deed of conveyance of real property, including timber deeds, timber leases and contracts of conveyance of timber, can be placed on record in the office of the register ofdeeds or clerk of court, it must have thereon the endorsement of the county auditor that it has been entered of record in his office.

f'Wi

S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-260 provides that
Each county auditor shall keep a record of all sales or conveyances of real property made in the county, in which he shall enter, in columns, the names of the purchaser and seller, the quantity ofland conveyed and the location and price of such land, and from such record he shall correct the county duplicates annually. For the purpose of carrying out this provision, the clerk of courts or register of deeds of each county shall have the endorsement of the county auditor on each deed of conveyance for real property that the conveyance has been entered in his office before such deed can be placed on the record in the recording office, and the county auditor shall be entitled Ra.m~

/ )I Wilk~

Y· DEljM5 Bun.DINO • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • CoUJMB•A. S.C. 29211-1549 • TE.L.EPHON.E: 803-734-3970 • fAcs.IMil.E: 803-253-6283

c:Y1/llfJ .

Ms. Warner
Page2
July 13, 2005

to a fee of twenty-five cents, for his own use, for making such entry and endorsement. 1

I

When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991). Statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). Consistent with Sections 30-5-80 and 12-39-260, beforeadeedmayberecorded, it must have the endorsement of the county auditor showing that it has been entered in his office. If such endorsement is typically shown by the auditor's stamp, then such practice must be continued. If there are any questions, please advise.

Sincerely,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

,~f), Wt--

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

1

Similarly, S.C. Code Ann.§ 8-21-130 states that "(f)or every entry and endorsement on any deed of conveyance of real property recorded in his office, each county auditor shall receive a fee of twenty-five cents.