When could a South Carolina county change a magistrate's work location during the magistrate's term?

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked whether Newberry County Council had overstepped by changing the work locations of two magistrates. The council's resolution referred to a case backlog, vacant magistrate positions and a need expressed by the chief magistrate. The chief magistrate reportedly disputed the last point. The Attorney General's informal 2002 letter explained the governing statute but declined to decide whether the resolution's factual claims were credible.

The statute protected a magistrate's work location during the term, with an exception for a county-governing-body change at least four years after the most recent appointment and after a material change in conditions. The AG noted an earlier opinion accepting that a caseload change could be material. It did not decide whether all of those conditions were met for the Peak and Whitmire magistrates.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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

County governing bodies

As quoted in the 2002 letter, S.C. Code Ann. §22-1-10 allowed a work-location change only through the county governing body, after the specified four-year period and a material change in conditions. The AG said a change in caseload could constitute such a material change, citing a 1996 opinion.

Magistrates whose locations were changed

The opinion did not resolve the chief magistrate's dispute over the council resolution's statement that he had expressed a need for the change. The AG said his office could not assess the credibility of the underlying facts.

Common questions

Could a county change a magistrate's work location at any time? A: Under the provision quoted in 2002, the location generally remained the same during the term. The stated exception required at least four years since the magistrate's most recent appointment and a material change in conditions.

Could a case backlog count as a material change?
A: The AG cited an earlier opinion agreeing that a change in caseload could qualify. It did not decide whether Newberry County's asserted backlog met the statute's conditions here.

Did the AG decide whether the chief magistrate supported the move? A: No. The letter reported that the chief magistrate disputed the resolution's assertion and said the office could not judge the credibility of those facts.

Background and statutory framework

The request concerned Newberry County Council Resolution #4-02, which changed the Peak and Whitmire magistrates' work locations. The opinion quoted S.C. Code Ann. §22-1-10 and referred to an AG opinion dated May 14, 1996, on caseload changes. Its conclusion stopped at the limit of the office's ability to resolve disputed facts. The letter expressly described itself as an informal opinion by an Assistant Attorney General.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. §22-1-10: quoted work-location rule and exception.
• Prior AG opinion dated May 14, 1996: cited for the possibility that a caseload change may be material.

Official title

Review of Newberry County Council's change to magistrate work locations.

Requester

The Honorable André Bauer, Senator, District No. 18

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-20-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02may20bauer.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

IL

May 20, 2002

The Honorable Andre Bauer
Senator, District No. 18
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Re:

Your Letter of May 6, 2002
Newberry County Magistrate Work Locations

Dear Senator Bauer:

I

In your above-referenced letter, you have requested that this Office "review and give an opinion as to whether Newberry County Council is encroaching on others' rights?" The materials attached to your letter indicate a concern with a Newberry County Council Resolution (#4-02) which changed the work location of the Peak and Whitmire Magistrates. According to the resolution, the change was necessitated by a backlog of cases and vacancies in one full-time and two part-time magistrate positions. It is also indicated in the resolution that the Chief Magistrate "has expressed a need" which justifies the change in locations. S.C. Code Ann. §22-1-10 provides that "[e]ach magistrate's number of work hours, compensation, and work location must remain the same throughout the term of office, except for a change ... authorized by the county governing body at least four years after the magistrate's most recent appointment and after a material change in conditions has occurred which warrants the change." In a previous opinion, this Office concurred with the position of a county attorney that a change in caseload could amount to a "material change in conditions." See OP. ATTY. GEN. Dated May 14, 1996. I understand that the Chief Magistrate disputes that he has "expressed a need" for the change in the work locations for the effected magistrates. The credibility of the facts upon which the resolution is based, however, is a matter upon which this Office cannot comment.

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

~cY~J

•

POST OFFICE Box I 1549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Senator Bauer

Page2
May 20, 2002
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 question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General and not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

!
L

David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General
DKA/an

(