Did renting a South Carolina hotel room by the month put the guest under landlord-tenant law in 1994?

Plain-English summary

A Myrtle Beach police captain asked whether people who rented hotel or motel rooms by the month remained covered by a new lodging statute or instead came under residential landlord-tenant law. The AG said the answer turned on transient status, not simply on monthly billing. A rental or lease arrangement for 90 consecutive days with the establishment would not count as transient under the accommodations-tax provision the letter used as a guide.

For a nontransient occupant, the AG said residential landlord-tenant law could apply and the Lodging Establishment Act would appear not to apply. He framed both consequences cautiously and said the classification required a case-by-case look at the arrangement. The opinion noted that the new lodging act had not yet been construed by a court.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. 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 paying hotel rent monthly automatically create a residential tenancy?
The opinion did not say that. It focused on whether the stay involved a 90-consecutive-day rental or lease arrangement with the establishment.

What was the significance of 90 consecutive days?
The AG relied on an accommodations-tax provision that excluded proceeds from a rental to the same person for that period from proceeds from transients.

What happened if the occupant was nontransient?
The letter said residential landlord-tenant law could govern, and the lodging act would appear not to apply.

Did the AG give a categorical answer for all monthly guests?
No. He called for a case-by-case determination and noted the lodging statute was new and had not yet been interpreted by a court.

Background and statutory framework

The new lodging law defined an establishment by accommodations furnished to transients but did not define “transient.” The AG compared the residential landlord-tenant law's exclusion for transient hotel occupancy with the accommodations-tax statute's 90-day rule. He used that comparison to give a qualified answer for longer stays.

Citations and references

• § 45-2-20: lodging-establishment definition discussed.
• § 27-40-120: exclusion for transient occupancy discussed.
• § 12-36-920: accommodations-tax treatment of long stays discussed.

Official title

Concerning the scope of the “Lodging Establishment Act,” adopted by the General Assembly in 1994.

Requester

Captain Warren Gall, Uniform Division, City of Myrtle Beach Police Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-26-1994/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1994july26gall.pdf

Original opinion text

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK

REMBERT C. DENNIS BU11..D1NG

ATIORNEY GENERAL

POST OFFICE BOX 11549
COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211
TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970
FACSIMILE, 803-253-6283

July 26, 1994
Captain Warren Gall
Uniform Division
City of Myrtle Beach Police Department
1101 Oak Street
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29577
Dear Captain Gall:
Referencing the "Lodging Establishment Act" adopted by the General Assembly in 1994, you have asked how this act would apply to guests of hotels, motels, or other lodging establishments who rent by the month. You asked whether such would become a landlord-tenant situation outside the scope of the Lodging Establishment Act. The Lodging Establishment Act will add § 45-2-10 et seq. to the South Carolina Code of Laws, to govern the lawful use of lodging establishments and provide penalties, including restitution requirements, for violations thereof. New§ 45-2-20 defines the term "lodging establishment" as a hotel, motel, villa, condominium, inn, tourist court, tourist camp, campground, bed and breakfast, residence, or any place in which rooms, lodging, or sleeping accommodations are furnished to transients for a consideration[.] The term "transient" is not defined in the new act. On its face, the new act appears to be quite broad in application. The South Carolina Residential Landlord and Tenant Act is codified at S.C. Code Ann. § 27-40-10 et seq. Certain residential arrangements are excluded from governance of this act by§ 27-40-120; among them is subsection (4), "transient occupancy in a hotel, motel, or other accommodations subject to the sales tax on accommodations as provided by§ 12-36-920[.]" Section 12-36-920 provides for the levy of a sales tax equal to seven percent (7%) on the gross proceeds of rentals or charges for rooms, lodging, or sleeping

Captain Gall
Page 2
July 26, 1994

accommodations which are furnished to transients for a consideration, as more fully described in the statute; however, gross proceeds derived from the lease or rental of sleeping accommodations supplied to the same person for a period of ninety continuous days are not considered proceeds from transients. If one rents or leases sleeping accommodations for a period of ninety (or more) consecutive days, such would not be considered transient, would not be subject to the accommodations tax, and could be governed by the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. If one is not considered transient and thus is governed by the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, it would appear that the Lodging Establishment Act would not then apply, as such provision of lodging would not seem to be on a transient basis. To determine which act would apply to a given situation, it would appear to be necessary to determine whether an individual is a transient, i.e., whether that individual has entered into a rental or lease arrangement for ninety consecutive days with the particular establishment. Such determination will have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

I

{j

We trust that this has provided the necessary clarification to the extent possible, as the Lodging Establishment Act is new and has not been construed by a court as of now. If additional clarification should be needed, we would ask that the Chief of Police forward that request to this Office. Sincerely,

~(j).fcfv.;~
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
PDP/an
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions