Could a private company collect unpaid magistrate tickets and charge defendants a collection fee?

Plain-English summary

Newberry County's chief magistrate asked about an out-of-state company that offered to collect unpaid tickets without charging the court, while charging defendants a fee of up to forty percent. The Attorney General said the cited statute did not authorize that private collection arrangement. It repeated an earlier opinion's view that the court and its officers had to receive and handle public fine money unless the legislature expressly authorized delegation. A company could still assist through calls or letters urging payment without taking custody of the funds.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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 statute allowing a clerk to compromise fines let a company collect ticket money?
A: The AG said no. Section 14-1-202 did not give private companies the proposed collection authority.

Q: Could the company contact people about unpaid tickets?
A: Yes. The opinion described calls and letters as possible assistance, provided the court retained actual handling and collection of the money.

Q: Did the AG approve the company's proposed fee on defendants?
A: No. The fee was part of the arrangement described, and the AG found no authority for the company to collect the tickets in that manner.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion distinguished ministerial reminders from taking physical custody of fines. It read Section 14-1-202's authority for a clerk or treasurer to compromise amounts as insufficient to transfer collection to a private company. The letter also raised a possible separation-of-powers issue with officials outside the judiciary compromising court-imposed fines; it did not decide that constitutional question.

Citations

• Section 14-1-202

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-28-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04july-28-English.pdf

Original opinion text

·I
j

State of South Carolina
.. .. OFFICE OFTheTHE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsn:R
A1TORNEY GENERAL

I

· July 28, 2004

The Honorable Mark E. English
Chief Magistrate, Newberry County
Ne~berry County Central Court
3239 Louis Rich Drive
Newberry, South Carolina 29108
Dear Judge English:

In a letter to this office you referenced that you had been contacted by an out· of state company that assists magistrates courts in the collection of unpaid tickets. The company charges no fe,es for the assistance from the courts but charges defendants with unpaid tickets up to a forty percent fee for the collection of the tickets. You questioned the authority for the company to collect such on such tickets. Enclosed is a copy of a prior opinion ofthis office dated December 14, 1999 which concludes that any physical collection and handling of public monies should be done exclusively by the courts and its officers rather than by a company with whom a contract could be entered in order to attempt to collect such fines. The opinion stated Thus, while cases.. .imply authority to delegate by contract the col1ection of fines and parkjng tickets to a private corporation, the better reasoned view in South .Carolina ' would be to require express legislative authorization by the General Assembly in order to insure that such delegation is lawful. Even though this function is probably ministerial in nature, the statutes clearly contemplate that the magistrate (or magistrate's office) must collect the fine. Of course, nothing would prevent the county of the magistrate from employing the private company to assist the court and the county in collecting past due fines, etc. in ways other than taking physical custody of the monies. For example, telephone calls or letters urging payment could fall into this category. However, the responsibility for actually handling and collecting these public monies must undoubtedly remain the province of the magistrate, absent additional legislative authorization.

C~s

Q)
MF'M'RFR/
Bl.Ill.DING • POST OFFICE Box 11 549 • COLUMBIA, s.c. 292 11 ·1549 • TELEPHONE'. 803-734-3970 • FACSIMD...E: 803-253-6283 K.J .f../J /ja~- ~t../7,/,JV

The Honorable Mark' E. Eqglish,
Page2
July 28, 2004

In association with your question you questioned the interpretation ofS.C. Code Ann. Section 14-1-202 (Supp. 2003) which states in part:

I
I

The clerk of the appropriate court, or county treasurer or municipal treasurer, as appropriate, m~y c:ompromise any fine, penalty, cost, fee, assessment, surcharge, service charge, restitution, 'or other amount imposed by a court or as a direct consequence of a court order to the extent necessary to collect these items. If a clerk · or treasurer compromises an amount pursuant to this subsection, the proceeds representing the collected amount must be distributed pro rata to the entities that otherwise woul.d have received the original amount. I

In my opinion, such provision does not provide any authority for a company to collect on unpaid tickets such as in the manner you specified. Tthe language that the clerk "may compromise... to the extent necessary to collect these items" would not appear to authorize such activity. As stated in the prior opinion referenced above, specific legislative authorization would be necessary in order to authorize a private company to collect on unpaid tickets. Also, Section 14-1-202 raises· possible separation of powers arguments in violation of ,Article I, § 8 of the South Carolina Constitution which requires the separ~tion of legislative; executive 'llld judicial powers in its allowing officials outside the judicial branch to compromise fines. With kind regards, I am, V ~ry truly yours,

a:ldYI ti~-Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

!Lt>·Gzf:-

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General