What remedy did the South Carolina AG expect if Dreher High School land purchases or ballot disclosures were invalid?

Plain-English summary

Responding to a follow-up question about Dreher High School expansion, the Attorney General said a court would likely enjoin the disputed land purchases and spending of bond proceeds for that expansion if the purchases were invalid or the ballot question materially misleading. The AG expected a targeted remedy rather than invalidation of the entire school bond referendum. This was a prediction on assumed facts, not a judicial finding that the purchases or referendum were unlawful.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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.

Historical summary

The opinion referred back to the office’s longer May 8 analysis of school property approval and voter disclosure. It identified the proposed remedy if a court found the stated defects, while leaving those underlying findings to the court.

Common questions

Would the whole school bond referendum likely be canceled?
The AG said the likely remedy was an injunction against the Dreher purchases and expansion spending.

Did the AG itself find that voters were misled?
No. It answered a hypothetical question assuming a court reached that conclusion.

Could bond money be spent on a purpose voters had not authorized?
The opinion cited cases restricting bond proceeds to authorized purposes.

Background and statutory framework

A representative asked what remedy a court would impose if the Dreher property purchases were invalid or the related ballot question materially misleading. The short letter answered by reference to the office’s May 8 opinion and cited decisions about unauthorized uses of bond proceeds.

Citations and references

The opinion cited Doran v. Robertson and Sadler v. Lyle, among other bond cases.

Official title

Regarding Richland School District One’s purchase of properties for renovation and/or expansion of Dreher High School.

Requester

The Honorable Leon Howard, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-14-2003/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/03may-14-Howard.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 14, 2003

The Honorable Leon Howard
Member, House of Representatives
432B Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative Howard:
In reference to this Office's opinion dated May 8, 2003 regarding Richland School District One's purchase of properties for renovation and/or expansion of Dreher High School, you have asked the following question: assuming a court were to conclude that the purchases of property were invalid or the ballot question concerning Dreher's renovation and/or expansion constituted a material misrepresentation, what remedy would the court likely impose?

i

I

~w

...,.

This question is answered by the May 8, opinion. As stated in the opinion, rather than setting aside the bond referendum, the court would likely enjoin both the purchases of property for the proposed Dreher High School expansion "as well as any expenditures of bond [proceeds] for such expansion." See, Doran v. Robertson, 203 S.C. 434, 27 S.E.2d 714 (1943) [expenditure of bond proceeds forunauthorized purpose enjoined]; Watson v. Livingston, 154 S.C. 257, 151 S.E.469 (l 930)
[school bond referendum upheld, but any bond proceeds beyond constitutional debt limit held to be invalid]; Sadler v. Lyle, 254 S.C. 535, 176 S.E.2d 290 ( 1970) [purposefor which the particular bond proceeds are used must be stated '\vith sufficient certainty to inform and not mislead the voters as to the object in view."]; Lindsey v. Guhl, 237 Ga. 567, 229 S.E.2d 354 (1976) [bond proceeds approved by voters for one purpose may not be used for another and different purpose]; Little Portion Franciscan Sisters, Inc. v. Boatright, 26 S. W.3d 443 (2000) ["the proceeds of this bond election may only be used for the purpose of constructing a new sewerage treatment plant at the location of the existing treatment plant .... ";expenditure of bond proceeds for the construction of other facilities at the location are invalid and enjoined]; McNichols v. City and County of Denver, 120 Colo. 380, 209 P.2d 910 ("the use of the proceeds for any other purpose is a violation of the city charter and a wrongful diversion of the funds because such use has not been authorized by the people."]. I trust this responds to JQUr inquiry.

Mc Master
HM/an
REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING • Posr OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

~J -~ ,