Could a South Carolina county create its own procedure for unclaimed money left by former jail inmates?

Plain-English summary

Horry County's detention director asked what law governed money former jail inmates left behind and whether the county could enact its own disposal procedure. In an October 2002 informal opinion, an Assistant Attorney General identified two potentially relevant state statutes: the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act and a law on abandoned or stolen property recovered by law enforcement. He said deciding which applied was difficult and referred the requester to an earlier AG opinion for guidance.

The letter did not select a disposal procedure for the inmate funds. It said counties had ordinance power, but that a county rule could not conflict with statewide abandoned-property law. The earlier opinion was described as an enclosure; its text is not part of this reproduced letter.

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.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG choose one statute for abandoned inmate money? A: No. It said both identified statutes appeared to cover the situation and that choosing between them was difficult.

Q: Could Horry County write its own unclaimed-funds ordinance? A: The opinion said county ordinances could not be inconsistent with the state's general abandoned-property laws.

Q: Did this letter provide a complete disposal procedure? A: No. It identified potentially applicable laws and mentioned an enclosed earlier opinion, but did not set out a complete process.

Background and statutory framework

The letter identified the unclaimed-property scheme beginning at §27-18-10 and the law-enforcement property provision at §27-21-20. It used §4-9-25 to explain that counties could enact ordinances only when consistent with state general law.

Citations and references

• §27-18-10: beginning of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act cited by the opinion.
• §27-21-20: law-enforcement abandoned-property provision.
• §4-9-25: county ordinance authority and limits.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-15-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02oct-15-fox.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLI E CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

October 15, 2002

i

i

L

Tom Fox, Director of Detention
Horry County Sheriff's Office
J. Reuben Long Detention Center
4150 J. Reuben Long A venue
Conway, SC 29526

I
,.,

!;'.'

Re:

Your Letter of September 3, 2002

Dear Mr. Fox:
In your above-referenced letter, you ask for this Office's opinion concerning the following questions:

I

1.
Is there any existing South Carolina state statute or Attorney General's opinion that outlines how to dispose of unclaimed inmate funds left at county jails when inmates are discharged and never come back to claim their money? 2. Can a county create an ordinance to set up a procedure to dispose of the unclaimed inmate funds?

LAW/ANALYSIS
r ..
i

There are two relevant statutes to consider in answering your first question. First, South Carolina has adopted the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, which is codified at S.C. Code Ann.
§27-18-10 et seq. The Act provides a comprehensive scheme regulating the disposition of various categories of deemed abandoned, intangible personal property. Secondly, South Carolina has also adopted S.C. Code Ann. §27-21-20 which relates to the recovery and disposition of abandoned or stolen property by law enforcement agencies. The question of which statute to use is a difficult issue as both appear to cover your situation, but we have enclosed a prior opinion from this Office, dated January 6, 1998, which I believe will provide some guidance. As to your second question of whether a county can create an ordinance to set up a procedure to dispose of the unclaimed inmate funds, S.C. Code Ann. §4-9-25 provides that " [a]ll counties of the State, in addition to the powers conferred to their specific form of government, have authority to enact regulations, resolutions, and ordinances, not inconsistent with the Constitution and general
)

REMBERT

M o /1 . , ,,

...J.

c. D~NNIS BU I LDING

\../,.,th-.

•

POST OFFICE Box 11 549

•

COLUM BI A, S.C. 292 11- 1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACS IM ILE: 803-253-6283

f

[

Mr. Fox
Page 2
October 15, 2002

law of this State, including the exercise of these powers in relation to health and order in counties or respecting any subject as appears to them necessary and proper for the security, general welfare, and convenience of counties or for preserving health, peace, order, and good government in them ... (emphasis added)." Accordingly, political subdivisions are not free to adopt ordinances that are inconsistent with or repugnant to the Constitution or general laws of the State. As the General Assembly has chosen to pass general laws regarding the handling of abandoned property, Horry County could not enact any ordinance inconsistent with those general laws.

I

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 nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

Sincerely,

Assistant Attorney General

I

DKA/an
Enclosure