Could a South Carolina register charge for returning unrecordable documents or modem access to records in 1995?

Official title

Asking if the RMC Office may charge an attorney or member of the public thirty-two cents for postage to return an incorrectly executed document, or for the envelope and staff time needed.  Also, if the RMC Office may take part in a computer access program whereby, for a fee, public information already available at the Office is transmitted by modem to private offices, with the fees collected going to the County’s general funds.

Requester

The Honorable Charlie Lybrand, Register, Mesne Conveyances

Plain-English summary

The register asked about three charges: postage to return a document that could not be recorded, envelopes and staff review time, and transmitting public records by modem. The 1995 informal opinion said a county ordinance could authorize return postage, and the cited authority might support supplies. It found no authority in those sources for charging staff time to determine whether a document was recordable. It also said the county could permit remote transmission, subject to the Freedom of Information Act's then-applicable cost limits.

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 the register charge postage to return an unrecordable document?
A: The opinion said yes, if the county governing body authorized the charge by ordinance.

Q: Could the register charge for staff time spent deciding recordability?
A: The opinion found no support for that charge in the authorities it reviewed.

Q: Could the county charge for modem access to records?
A: The opinion said the county appeared able to permit transmission for a fee set at the lowest possible cost and no more than actual cost under the law it cited.

Background and statutory framework

The letter distinguished prescribed recording fees from other county-authorized service charges. It relied on Section 4-1-150 for county ordinance authority and Section 30-4-30 for public-records fees. It did not purport to authorize a particular modem program or fee amount.

Citations and references

• Section 4-1-150: the letter cited county ordinance authority for service charges.
• Section 30-4-30: the letter cited the public-records fee limit and described records as furnished at the "lowest possible" cost.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-8-1995-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995may8lybrand.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON

ATIORNEY GENERAL

.«I

May 8, 1995

The Honorable Charlie Lybrand
Register, Mesne Conveyances

• Post Office Box 726
  Charleston, South Carolina 29402-0726
  Dear Mr. Lybrand:
  You have requested the advice of this Off ice as to several questions which are set forth below: 1.

May the RMC Office charge an attorney or a member of the public thirty-two cents, the cost of a stamp to return an incorrectly executed document that cannot be recorded?

As previous opinions of this Office have indicated, a fee should not be charged by Clerks of Court and Registers of Mesne Conveyances in excess of those fees provided by S.C. Code Ann. §821-310 (Supp. 1994), except for other services such as copying. See Ops. Atty. Gen., March 24, 1986, June 11, 1985 and June 19, 1980. The basis for charging for matters such as copying appears to be by ordinance of the county governing body pursuant to Section 4-1-150 (1986). Under the above authority, charging for the return of an incorrectly executed document should be permissible provided that it is authorized by ordinance of the county governing body. 2.

May the RMC Office also charge for envelopes and the staff time necessary to determine whether an instrument is recordable?

Although the above authority might support charging for any supplies used in sending back an instrument that cannot be recorded, nothing in the above authority indicates that the county

REMBERT C, DENNIS Bl~!LDJ:-.;G

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA. s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Honorable Charlie Lybrand
Page 2
May B, 1995

governing body may authorize charging for staff time to determine whether an instrument is recordable. 3.

May the RMC Office take part in a computer access program whereby, for a fee, public information already available at the Office is transmitted by modem to private offices, with the fees collected going into the county• s general fund?

The Freedom of Information Act authorizes the establishment and collection of fees, not to exceed the actual cost of searching for or making copies of records, or for charging a reasonable hourly rate for making records available to the public. Section 30-4-30 (1991). Records must be furnished at the lowest possible
_cost to the person requesting the records. Id. Under§ 30-4-30 and the above authority, the county governing body appears to have the power to permit the transmission of these records for a fee set "at the lowest possible cost" and not to exceed the actual cost. Id. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I hope that this information is of assistance to you. Yours very truly,

19A-·J~
g. ~~
~mith,

J. Erner;
Jr.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

JESjr./fg