What guidance did the 2002 South Carolina AG give on storage fees for an impounded vehicle?

Plain-English summary

A Charleston County court official asked about storage fees for impounded vehicles. In a short July 2002 informal opinion, the AG said it was unaware of a state statute that specifically answered the question. It pointed to other state towing and storage provisions that called for actual costs and reasonable, necessary charges. Depending on why a vehicle was towed, the letter said a local ordinance might also determine storage costs.

The opinion gave two local examples. It noted that Myrtle Beach then capped certain towing and storage fees, while Charleston's ordinance required payment of reasonable costs connected with removing and storing a vehicle and locating its owner. The letter did not choose a particular fee for the requester's situation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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 AG identify a single statewide storage fee? A: No. It said no state statute specifically addressed the question presented.

Q: What state-law standards did the letter discuss?
A: It pointed to other towing and storage statutes referring to actual costs and reasonable, necessary charges.

Q: Could a city ordinance matter?
A: The opinion said a local ordinance might apply depending on the reason for towing and gave Myrtle Beach and Charleston as examples.

Background and statutory framework

The letter discussed § 23-19-10 (e) and § 56-29-50 (j) as related state-law examples rather than as a direct answer to the request. It also invoked South Carolina's constitutional home-rule principle to explain why local ordinances might differ.

Citations and references

• § 23-19-10 (e): towing and storage cost provision cited.
• § 56-29-50 (j): related towing and storage provision cited.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-25-2002-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02july-25-deogburn.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
AlTORNEY GENERAL

July 25, 2002
Kathryn Deogbum
Charleston County Swnmary Clerk of Court
Summary Courts Administration
Lonnie Hamilton, Ill Public Service Building
4045 Bridge View Drive
North Charleston, SC 29405
~

..

Re: Request for Opinion Concerning Storage Fees for Impounded Vehicles Dear Ms. Deogbum:

I

In your above referenced request, you asked this Office for an opinion concerning storage fees for impounded vehicles. I am unaware of any state statute that specifically addresses your question. However, other state statutes that deal with towing and storage charges state that the towing and storage fees charged should be charged at the actual costs and that the towing and storage costs should be reasonable and necessary. See S.C. Code Ann.§ 23-19-10 (e); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-29-50 (j). Furthermore, Article VIII of the South Carolina Constitution mandates home rule for local governments. "Implicit in Article VIII is the realization that different local governments have different problems that require different solutions." Hospitality Ass 'n of S.C. v. County of Charleston, 320 S.C. 219, 464 S.E.2d 113 (1995). Thus, depending on the reason for the towing, a local ordinance may apply for purposes of determining storage costs. For instance, Myrtle Beach City Code§ 23-133 (d) imposes maximum fees which can be charged for the towing and storage of vehicles. Likewise, City of Charleston Municipal Ordinance§ 14-34 (a) states that " [t]he owner of any removed vehicle, before obtaining possession thereof, shall pay to the city or, as appropriate, its agent storing said vehicle, all reasonable costs incidental to the removal and storage (of the vehicle) and locating the owner."

1

R EMBERT

c. D ENNIS BUILDING

~~h• .

•

P OST OFFICE Box l 1549

•

COL UMBIA, S.C. 292 11 - 1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Ms. Deogburn
Page 2
July 25, 2002
I hope the information provided herein proves helpful. 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.

I

L

I
~

I

David K. Avant ~/
Assistant Attorney General
DKA/jbc