Could Bamberg collect unsafe-house repair or demolition costs like delinquent city taxes?

Plain-English summary

Bamberg asked whether it could recover the costs of repairing, closing, or demolishing an unfit dwelling in the same way it collected delinquent municipal taxes. The AG quoted a provision making those costs a lien on the property and collectible in the same manner as municipal taxes. He concluded that the city could use its tax collection process, including the process for delinquent property taxes, while still meeting the other requirements of the unsafe-dwelling chapter.

The letter has a citation discrepancy. It identifies the provision in the request and the quoted statute as Section 31-15-30(6), but calls it Section 31-15-20(6) in the conclusion. This page preserves both numbers as printed and does not resolve which citation is correct. The letter expressly identified itself as an informal opinion by an Assistant Attorney General.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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 Bamberg place a lien on a property for unsafe-house costs? A: The provision quoted in the opinion made the described costs a lien against the real property where they were incurred.

Q: Could the city collect those costs through its delinquent-tax process? A: Yes, according to the AG’s reading of the statute. He said the costs were collectible like municipal taxes, including delinquent property taxes, if the other statutory requirements were met.

Q: Did the opinion waive the chapter’s other requirements? A: No. The AG expressly said the city also had to meet the other requirements of the chapter.

Background and statutory framework

The quoted statute allowed a municipality to adopt an ordinance about dwellings unfit for human habitation after finding the conditions specified in the chapter. The quoted cost provision covered repairs, alterations, improvements, vacating, closing, removal, and demolition by the public officer. The AG read its collection language alongside the municipality’s tax collection power. The opinion’s two section numbers should be checked in the official PDF and statute before citation.

Citations and references

Statutes as printed: Section 31-15-30(6) in the request and quotation; Section 31-15-20(6) in the analysis; S.C. Code Ann.§ 5-7-300.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-17-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/98march17watson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

March 17, 1998

Stuart B. Watson, Clerk/Treasurer
City of Bamberg
P.O. Box 300
Bamberg, South Carolina 29003
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Watson:
Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. You have asked for clarification of Section 31-15-30(6) of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Specifically, does Section 31-15-30(6) give the City of Bamberg the authority to collect the costs incurred under the section in the same manner as the City collects delinquent municipal taxes. Section 31-15-30 provides in pertinent part as follows: Upon the adoption of an ordinance finding that dwelling conditions of the character described in § 31-15-20 exist within a municipality, the governing body of such municipality may adopt ordinances relating to the dwellings within such municipality which are unfit for human habitation. Such ordinance may include the following provisions: (6) That the amount of the cost of such repairs, alterations or improvements, vacating and closing, or removal or demolition by the public officer shall be a lien against the real property upon which such cost was incurred and shall be collectible in the same manner as municipal taxes. (emphasis added).

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Watson
Page 2
March 17, 1998
In interpreting a statute, the primary objective is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). The words of a statute must be given the plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991). Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning. Paschal v. State Election Commission, 317 S.C. 434, 454 S.E.2d 890 (1995).

I
I

The clear and unambiguous terms of Section 31-15-20(6) provide that the costs incurred under this section constitute a lien against the real property which shall be collectible in the same manner as municipal taxes. Included in a municipality's power to collect taxes is the power to collect delinquent ad valorem property taxes. S.C. Code Ann.§ 5-7-300. You have asked whether the terms of Section 31-15-20(6) would permit the City of Bamberg to collect cost incurred under the section in the same manner it collects delinquent municipal taxes. It is my opinion, based on the plain meaning of the terms used, that Section 31-15-20(6) grants the City of Bamberg the authority to collect the costs incurred thereunder in the same manner as it collects taxes, including delinquent ad valorem property taxes. Of course, the City of Bamberg must also meet the other requirements found in Section 31-15-10 et seq. 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 questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I remain Very truly yours,

~1:t~

Assistant Attorney General