Could Marion County cut a magistrate’s pay after a city ended its municipal-court stipend?

Plain-English summary

Marion County had assigned a magistrate to serve as Mullins's municipal judge. The city paid the county a stipend for that service. When Mullins chose a different judge and stopped the payment, the county reduced the magistrate's pay. The magistrate argued that the Magistrate's Pay Act barred a salary reduction during tenure.

The Attorney General did not decide whether this particular reduction was lawful. The opinion said the Act set the magistrate's base salary and protected certain above-base salaries from reduction, but did not say whether this kind of municipal-court supplement became part of the salary. That question depended on the specific agreement between the county and magistrate, a factual determination the AG declined to make.

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: Did the Magistrate's Pay Act protect a magistrate's salary during tenure?
A: The opinion quoted Section 22-8-40(1), which prohibited reducing the salary of a magistrate paid above the statutory amount during tenure, including a renewed term after reappointment.

Q: Did the AG decide whether the Mullins stipend was protected salary?
A: No. The opinion said the answer depended on whether the county-magistrate agreement made the supplement part of salary or an addition to it. The AG expressly declined that factual determination.

Q: Why had the county reduced the magistrate's pay?
A: According to the request, Mullins appointed a new municipal judge, ended its agreement with the county and stopped the stipend for the magistrate's former city-court service.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion described the Magistrate's Pay Act's base-salary calculation and annual adjustment. It then quoted the protection for a magistrate already receiving more than the statutory salary. It did not interpret the absent agreement or determine how the parties characterized the stipend.

Citations and references

• Section 22-8-40(1), the tenure salary-protection provision quoted by the opinion.
• § 22-8-40(E), the annual base-salary adjustment discussed by the opinion.

Official title

Asking as to whether it is appropriate for the county to reduce the magistrate’s salary.

Requester

Timothy H. Pogue, Esquire

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-13-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/98oct13pogue.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M . CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

October 13 , 1998

Timothy H. Pogue, Esquire
Marion County Attorney
Post Office Box 790
Marion, South Carolina 29571
RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Pogue:

( ;·;).,1.

I
!Wf;

Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. You have informed this Office that in 1982, the Marion County Council entered into an agreement with the City of Mullins whereby a magistrate would be assigned to serve as Municipal Court judge for the city. This agreement called for the city to pay a stipend to the county for the magistrate's service. Recently, the city appointed a new city judge who was not a magistrate. Upon this appointment, the city terminated the agreement with the county and stopped paying the stipend. Since the city was no longer using the magistrate and was not paying the stipend, the county reduced the amount of pay received by the magistrate accordingly. The magistrate filed a petition pursuant to the "Magistrate's Pay Act" arguing that in light of Section 22-8-40(I) of the South Carolina Code of Laws, the county was not permitted to reduce the magistrate's salary. You have asked for an opinion as to whether it was appropriate for the county to reduce the magistrate's salary. The Magistrate's Pay Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 22-8-10 et seq., sets forth the base amount of compensation due magistrates in this state. The base salary of a magistrate is computed according to the population of the county in which the magistrate is located. S.C. Code Ann. 22-8-40(8)(1). In addition, the law provides that the base salary of a magistrate must be adjusted annually based on the percentage amount of the cost of living increase paid to classified state employees in the annual state general appropriations act of the previous fiscal year. S.C. Code Ann. § 22-8-40(E). Nothing in the Act provides

/)

REMBERT

c. ~~'l~B UILDING

~_.l....d~(~-~

•

POST 0FACE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA , S.C. 29211-1549

•

T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

F.~CSIMll.E: 803-253-6283

Mr. Pogue
Page 2
October 13, 1998
that a supplement paid to a magistrate for additional service as a municipal court judge is included in the base salary of the magistrate. The provision cited by the magistrate in his petition is Section 22-8-40(1). This section provides:

I
I

A magistrate who is receiving a salary greater than provided for his position under the provisions of this chapter must not be reduced in salary during his tenure in office. Tenure in office continues at the expiration of a term if the incumbent magistrate is reappointed. (emphasis added). As you can see, Section 22-8-40(!) prohibits a reduction in salary for a magistrate who is receiving a salary greater than provided for his position under the provision of the Act. However, the Act does not specifically provide that a supplement of the type present here is included in the salary of a magistrate. Therefore, to determine whether it is appropriate for the county to reduce the magistrate's salary in this instance, the specific terms of the agreement between the county and the magistrate would have to be analyzed. This analysis would focus on whether the agreement calls for the supplement to be included in the magistrate's salary or whether the supplement is in addition to the magistrate's salary. As such is a factual determination, it is beyond the scope of an opinion of this Office. Op. Any. Gen. dated December 12, 1983. 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,

llJ.fl

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General