Could one South Carolina landowner count multiple times on a municipal annexation petition in 1995?

Official title

Asking: if a person owns four or five separated tracts of land in the petitioning area, can that person sign the petition four or five times and be counted as four or five freeholders in order to reach the 75% requirement?

Requester

John P. Mann, Sr., Esquire

Plain-English summary

Mauldin’s city attorney asked whether an owner of four or five separate tracts could sign an annexation petition that many times toward the required freeholder percentage. The 1995 informal opinion concluded one freeholder, one signature, regardless of the number of qualifying parcels. The petition method had two distinct measurements: the proportion of freeholders signing and the proportion of assessed property value they owned. Multiple ownership affected the value measurement, not the number of people counted as freeholders. The author described the issue as novel and the conclusion as not free from doubt.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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: Could one owner sign once for every tract?
A: The letter concluded no: a qualifying freeholder should be counted once in the signature calculation.

Q: Were the owner’s additional parcels ignored completely? A: No. The opinion said they would be reflected in the separate assessed-valuation calculation.

Q: Did the AG consider this settled by a directly controlling case? A: No. The letter called the question novel and said its answer was not free from doubt.

Background and statutory framework

The letter interpreted §5-3-150(1), which used separate freeholder and assessed-valuation thresholds, alongside the definition of freeholder in §5-3-240. It treated Harley v. City of Spartanburg as informative about counting people, while noting that case did not decide this exact question.

Citations and references

• §5-3-150(1) and §5-3-240, the annexation petition and freeholder provisions interpreted in the letter.
• Harley v. City of Spartanburg, discussed as indirect support for counting individual freeholders.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-30-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95june30mann.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I

CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

June 30, 1995

John P. Mann, Sr., Esquire
Mauldin City Attorney
Post Office Box 10296
Greenville, South Carolina 29603
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Mann:
By your letter of June 22, 1995, on behalf of the City of Mauldin, you have sought an informal opinion on the following issue: The statutes involved are sections 5-3-150(1) and 5-3-240 of the S.C. Code (75% method of annexation by petition). If a person owns four or five separate tracts of land in the petitioning area, can that person sign the petition four or five times and be counted as four or five freeholders in order to reach the 75% requirement? In other words, does a freeholder qualify as one regardless of the number of parcels owned or can he or she be counted more than once based on ownership of numerous parcels? The definition of "freeholder" is found in §5-3-240 of the Code, as follows: For purposes of §§5-3-20, 5-3-50, and 5-3-160 to 5-3-240, a "freeholder" is defined as any person eighteen years of age, or older, and any firm or corporation, who or which owns legal title to a present possessoiy interest in real estate equal to a life estate or greater (expressly excluding leaseholds, easements, equitable interests, inchoate rights, dower rights and future interests) and who owns, at the date of the petition or of the referendum, at least an undivided one-tenth interest in a single tract and whose name appears on the county tax records as an owner of real estate. REMBERT

c. DE!-:"IS BULDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

John P. Mann, Sr., Esquire
Page 2
June 30, 1995
The method by which annexation is sought is found in §5-3-150(1) of the Code, which provides in pertinent part: '

(1) Any area or property which is contiguous to a city or town may be annexed to the city or town by filing with the municipal governing body a petition signed by seventy-five percent or more of the freeholders, as defined in Section 5-3-240 owning at least seventy-five percent of the assessed valuation of the real property in the area requesting annexation. ...

I
I

These two statutes are silent as to how to count freeholders who own more than one tract or parcel of property in the area seeking annexation to the municipality. My research has shown that there is very little authority among the courts or Attorneys General of the various states to which we can tum for assistance in interpreting statutes such as these. Thus, this is a question of novel impression and the response is therefore not free from doubt. I am of the opinion that the legislature, in adopting these statutes, intended that freeholders sign such a petition only one time regardless of the number of parcels or tracts he or she may own. Section 5-3-150(1) takes two calculations into account: seventy-five percent of the freeholders and seventy-five percent of the assessed valuation of the property seeking to be annexed to the municipality. Clearly the freeholder's multiple ownership will be taken into account in the second calculation.

In Harley v. City of Spartanburg, 230 S.C. 478, 96 S.E.2d 828 (1957), the court examined the concept of who would be a freeholder under the specific circumstances described in that decision. While the exact issue raised by your letter is not discussed therein, the decision is nevertheless informative in that the court seems to have counted the number of people who were to be considered freeholders. There are references in the decision to "the names of 736 persons ... " (230 S.C. at 485) and striking "13 names" from the list of names in the appellants' brief (230 S.C. at 490). The court seems to have been concerned about individual persons in detennining who was to be considered a freeholder. The concept of voting or signing a petition based upon the number of parcels which an individual might own (either singly or jointly) could be likened to weighted or cumulative voting, the latter often found in corporate elections. In such circumstances, the General Assembly has specifically provided for voting by taking into account the number of shares of stock which an individual owns in the particular corporation. See S.C. Code Ann. §33-7-280 as an example of cumulative voting. I am of the opinion that if the General Assembly had intended that an individual having an ownership interest in more than one parcel of property seeking annexation to the municipality, the General

John P. Mann, Sr., Esquire
Page 3
June 30, 1995
Assembly could have specifically provided for the individual to be counted more than once in signing the petition required by'§5-3-150(1), as it so provided in other situations. Because such is lacking with respect to §5-3-150(1), I am of the opinion that a freeholder should sign the petition requesting annexation to a municipality only one time regardless of the number of parcels or tracts of which he may have the requisite ownership interest. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I trust that is responds to your inquiry as satisfactorily as is possible under the circumstances. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

mv-tll-r

"-ltct'~ e{cc £ .1

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General

II
fl