Could a part-time South Carolina magistrate receive county-paid health and life insurance benefits?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked about state life and health benefits for part-time county magistrates. The July 2001 informal opinion said magistrates were generally county employees, so they could receive coverage under the state health plan if their county chose to participate. County officials largely decided whether to pay insurance as an employee perquisite.

A separate statute required magistrates to receive the same perquisites as county employees of similar position and salary. The AG found no language excluding part-time magistrates. Thus, if the county furnished insurance to comparable part-time employees, it had to treat its part-time magistrates the same way. The office could not decide whether a specific magistrate met that comparison because it required facts. The letter pointed to Court Administration’s monitoring role and the written county petition and judicial-review process for an aggrieved magistrate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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.

Historical summary

Part-time magistrates

The opinion did not promise insurance to every part-time magistrate. It made the benefit depend on county participation and treatment of comparable county employees.

County benefits officials

The letter treated the same-perquisites rule as covering part-time magistrates and left the individual comparison to local facts and statutory review channels.

Common questions

Were part-time magistrates excluded from county employee perks? A: No. The AG found no part-time exception to the magistrate perquisites provision.

Did the state require every county to pay magistrate insurance? A: The letter said county participation and payment choices mattered, subject to equal treatment of comparable employees.

Did the opinion determine one magistrate’s benefits?
A: No. The AG said individual eligibility was a factual question beyond the office’s authority in an opinion.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion cited § 1-11-720 on county participation in state insurance plans and Section 22-8-40(H) on magistrates’ equal perquisites. It also described §22-8-50’s petition process for a magistrate seeking county redress.

Citations and references

• § 1-11-720: county employees in state insurance plans.
• Section 22-8-40(H): equal perquisites for comparable county positions.
• §22-8-50: written petition and judicial review mentioned by the AG.

Official title

Issuing “an advisory opinion about county Magistrate’s qualifications for receiving State life and health benefits.”

Requester

The Honorable James H. Merrill, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-19-2001-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01july19merrill.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 19, 2001

The Honorable James H. Merrill
Member, House of Representatives
174 Etiwan Park Street
Daniel Island, South Carolina

Re:

Your Letter of April 10, 2001
Perquisites for Part-time Magistrates

Dear Representative Merrill:
In the above-referenced letter, you request that this Office "issue an advisory opinion about county Magistrate's qualifications for receiving State life and health benefits." From the attachments you included, it is apparent that the request relates specifically to part-time magistrates.

Generally, magistrates are considered county employees. See OP. ATTY. GEN. (Dated June 22, 1993 ). As such, should the county in which they serve choose to participate in the state health insurance plans, a magistrate would be eligible to receive the insurance coverage. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-11-720. Whether the county chooses to pay for the insurance coverage for its employees as a perquisite of their employment is largely left to the governing body of the county. See OP. ATTY. GEN. (Dated September 20, 1983) and S.C. Code Ann. §4-9-30(7). Section 22-8-40(H) provides that "[m]agistrates in a county are entitled to the same perquisites as those employees of the county of similar position and salary." There is no language in the statute which would indicate that part-time magistrates are excluded from the provisions of
§22-8-40(H). Accordingly, if a county chooses to reward with insurance coverage its part-time employees who have similar positions and salaries as the part-time magistrates, §22-8-40(H) would obligate the county to do the same for the part-time magistrates. The question of whether a particular part-time magistrate in a particular county is entitled to insurance benefits as a perquisite of his position is a question of fact. This Office has no authority to and cannot resolve such questions. See OPS. ATTY. GEN. (Dated December 12, 1983 & February 3, 1997). Pursuant to §22-8-40(M), South Carolina Court Administration is to monitor compliance with the sections setting magistrates salaries and their entitlement to perquisites. I would suggest that any specific questions be addressed to that office. Further, if a particular magistrate is aggrieved by a ruling of a county, §22-8-50 provides that he or she "may petition the county governing body, in writing, for redress ... subject to judicial review as provided in Section 1-23-380." REMBERT C . DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

I

[
I

r

I

The Honorable James H. Merrill
Page 2
July 19, 2001

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 asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General and not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

t
I
I

fl
IJ

Assistant Attorney General
DKA/an