Must a South Carolina register of deeds proofread documents before recording them?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, Greenville County's register of deeds asked how closely his office had to inspect documents submitted for recording. His staff tried to catch errors before recording, but some surfaced later during indexing or verification. The Attorney General said the recording officer's role was ministerial: the officer had to check whether statutory prerequisites for recording were met, then generally record a qualifying document as presented. The AG was unaware of any duty to proofread a document for its filer.

The opinion drew on an earlier AG opinion explaining that a recording officer could refuse an instrument that failed a statutory prerequisite. It also said that when the needed information could be gleaned from the record as a whole, refusal to record was questionable. Those limits mattered more than an office practice of correcting a filer's errors.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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 register have to catch every error in a deed before recording it?

A: No. The AG said it knew of no requirement that the register proofread documents for individual filers. Its stated inspection duty concerned statutory prerequisites to recording.

Q: Could the register reject a document that failed a recording requirement?

A: Yes. The opinion said the officer was authorized and required to refuse recordation when a statutory requisite was not met. It also repeated an earlier view that refusal was questionable if the necessary information appeared in the record as a whole.

Q: Could the office record a document exactly as submitted?

A: The AG said it generally could and had to do so once the statutory prerequisites were satisfied, without proofreading it for the filer.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion cited an earlier discussion of S. C. Code Ann. § 30-5-3 0, which set prerequisites before a deed or other written instrument could be recorded. It described the register's recording role as ministerial and distinguished checking those prerequisites from determining whether the parties had made a valid instrument.

Citations and references

• S. C. Code Ann. § 30-5-3 0: the recording prerequisite provision discussed in the opinion's text, reproduced here with the source extraction's spacing.
• Milford v. Aiken, 61S.C.110 at l l , 39 S.E. 233 ( 1901 ): quoted by the AG's earlier opinion for the statutory nature of recording.

Official title

Asking how much inspecting by your office of a document submitted for recording is required and whether you can legally record a document as submitted.

Requester

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

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-27-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mar27-06-Nanney.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
ATIORNEY GENERAL

March 27, 2006

The Honorable Timothy L Nanney
Register of Deeds, Greenville County
301 University Ridge, Suite 1300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Dear Mr. Nanney:

In a letter to this o.ffice you stated that it bas been the practice in your office to scrutinize

l

i

documents presented for recording. Such typically involves proof reading documents for the individuaJ filer. You stated that "while we make every effort to catch errors submitted by the filer prior to recording, it is very common for us not to catch errors until later in the indexing or verifying process." You have asked how much inspection by your office of a document submitted for recording is required and whether you can legally record a document as submitted. A prior opinion of this office dated January 20, 1982 dealt with the question of whether a recording officer was authorized to refuse a document for recording based upon illegibility. The opinion stated that:

I

L,:.'

Our court has stated that the process ofrecording is "purely the creation ofthe statute law, and therefore [is] subject to such variety as to form, methods, etc. as to the legislative mind may seem best." Milford v. Aiken, 61S.C.110 at l l , 39 S.E. 233 ( 1901 )... Moreover, it is important to remember that a recording officer, when performing his duties pursuant to the recording statutes, is a ministerial officer. The opinion continued by stating: Generally speaking, the duty of the register is ... to receive and record ... such instruments as by law are entitled to be... recorded, and to ... record them in such manner as to serve all the purposes of the law. In the absence of a statute to the contrary~ it is not his province to determine whether the parties have made valid instruments ... In short, the recording officer's autho1ity with respect to recordation is governed solely by statutory law ... With few exceptions ... the recording officer is statutorily required to record these documents and instruments as they are presented to him for recordation ...

f
Mr. Nanney
Page 2
March 27, 2006

f

I
I

The opinion noted that there are several statutory prerequisites to recordation. The particular authority for a recording officer to refuse a particular recordation is S. C. Code Ann. § 30-5-3 0 which states that "[b]efore any deed or other instrument in writing can be recorded in this State", the statutory requirements set forth by such provision must be met. The opinion commented that"[ w]ith respect to these statutory requirements (and any other statutory requirements), there is no doubt that the recording officer is authorized and required to refuse recordation if the statutory requisites are not met." Consistent with such, the referenced opinion concluded that " ... where the necessary information for compliance with the statutory requisites can be gleaned from the face of the record as a whole, it is questionable whether the officer can refuse to record the document altogether." See also: Op. Tex. Atty. Gen. dated May 17, 1988 ("[ e]ach document presented to the county clerk for recording must be judged on its own merits. If the document meets the ... (statutory) ... requirements, the county clerk is required to record the document. It is not the responsibility of the clerk to determine the effect or legality of perceived changes or corrections appearing on the face of the document presented for recording."). Another opinion of this office dated October 27, 1977 stated that a register of mesne conveyances was a "ministerial officer". As such, the opinion determined that "[t]he duties of said officer with respect to the maintenance of public recordation of deeds, mortgages, etc. is largely perfunctory, involving little discretion in the exercise thereof. Such duties are usually prescribed by statute or court rules." Consistent with such, in my opinion, as long as the statutory prerequisites for recording are met, it would generally be your obligation as the recording officer to record a document. I am unaware of any requirements that you proof read documents for a individual filer. As a result, it is my opinion that beside the necessary inspection to assure that the statutory prerequisites for recording are met, you may legally record a document as submitted. If there are any questions, please advise.

F

Sincerely,

i

Ckcak j/I~a-R___
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: