Could Greenville County stop printing real-property indexes if it kept a nightly computer backup?

Plain-English summary

Greenville County's register of deeds kept computerized real-property indexes and printed daily, monthly, and yearly copies for public use. The county information-systems department also backed up the indexes nightly in a secure location. The register asked whether that backup allowed the office to stop daily printing.

The AG concluded it did not. The then-applicable statute required a second or backup copy that the public could use if the electronic indexes were destroyed or unavailable. He reasoned that daily printed indexes would be readily available in that event, while the described nightly computer backup would not sufficiently meet the public-availability requirement. The letter addressed the particular backup arrangement described in the request.

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

Was a secure nightly backup enough under the opinion?
No. The AG said the described county IT backup did not meet the requirement that the public be able to use the backup if electronic indexes failed.

Why did the AG favor daily printing?
He viewed printed indexes as readily available for public use during destruction or unavailability of the electronic indexes.

Was the issue whether the county had any backup at all?
No. A backup existed; the dispute concerned whether it met the statute's public-use requirement.

Background and statutory framework

The letter interpreted the real-property-index backup provision according to its text. Its key distinction was between a copy retained by the county and a copy available for public use after electronic failure.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted S.C. Code Ann. § 30-9-75 in the original letter below.

Official title

Referencing the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 30-9-75 (Supp 2004). Specifically, whether the nightly backup of your computerized indices by the County IS Department complies with Section 30-9-75 which would allow your office to stop the printing of indices.

Requester

The Honorable Timothy L. Nanney, Register of Deeds, Greenville County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-23-2005-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05june23nanney.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McM.Asn:R
ATTORNEY GENERAi..

June 23, 2005

The Honorable Timothy L. Nanney
Register of Deeds, Greenville County
County Square
301 Universjty Ridge, Suite 1300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Dear Mr. Nanney:
In a letter to this office you referenced the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 30-9-75 (Supp. 2004) which state: Ln all cases where indices affecting real property are required to be maintained in the offices of the clerk of court or register of deeds and where these indices are maintained by electronic or computer means, the clerk of court or register of deeds shall provide at least a second or backup copy of the indices, which must be available for use by the public in the event of destruction or unavailability of the electronic indices. (emphasis added). You indicated that you have your computerized indices merged daily, monthly, and yearly, printed and on the floor for public use. You further indicated that such practice requires a tremendous amount oftime, money and space. You also stated that the indices are also backed up nightly and kept in a secure environment by the County IS Department. You indicated that you would like to stop the daily printing of computerized indices. Referencing such, you have questioned whether the nightly backup of your computerized indices by the County IS Department complies with Section 30-9-75 which would allow your office to stop the printing of indices. When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The card inal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Mrutin. 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. Maiiin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 ( 1971 ). Resort to subtle or fo rced 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 (J 984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C.
~u;I- ~fil:{Jc~ DENNIS BIJllDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c.1 9211 -1 549 • TELEPHONE: 803·734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Timothy L. Nanney
Page2
June 23, 2005

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).

I

I

Section 30-9-75 plainly states that the register of deeds " ... shall provide at least a second or backup copy of the indices, which must be available for use by the public in the event of destruction or unavailability of the ~lectronic indices." In my opinion, in order to be in a form available "for use by the public" in situations where the electronic indices are destroyed or are not available, there would have to be daily printing of indices which would then make such readily available for use by the public. In my opinion, the nightly backup of the computerized indices would not sufficiently meet the requirements of Section 30-9-75.

If there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,

cf!d~/r(121~
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~/~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

r
\