Did a South Carolina clerk charge a separate recording fee for a mortgage assignment filed with the same transaction's mortgage?

Plain-English summary

In October 2003, South Carolina's Attorney General reaffirmed that a clerk or register of deeds should not charge an additional recording fee for an assignment filed at the same time as the single mortgage involved in the same transaction. The opinion read the statutory exception for an assignment that was part of the original filing as covering that situation.

The association of clerks and registers disagreed, noting its practice of charging separately for documents indexed separately. The AG maintained the earlier interpretation and said the resulting practical problems could be addressed through a legislative amendment.

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

Clerks and registers of deeds

The AG treated simultaneous filing with the related single mortgage as the controlling condition for the no-additional-fee answer. Its response did not separately decide the association's blanket-assignment practice.

Common questions

Was a second recording fee due for the assignment filed with its mortgage?
The AG said no on the same-transaction, simultaneous-filing facts.

Did separate indexing change the opinion's answer?
No. The association raised that practice, but the office reaffirmed its reading of the statutory exception.

Did the opinion set fees for blanket assignments?
No. The requester described a separate practice for them, but the AG answered the single-mortgage question.

Background and statutory framework

The association's president challenged a 1980 AG opinion about contemporaneous mortgage and assignment filings. The office read the recording-fee provision the same way again and suggested legislative amendment if the interpretation caused practical problems.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed Section 8-21-310(3) and a June 19, 1980 AG opinion.

Official title

Requesting an interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-21-310(3)(Supp. 2002) which provides the fee to be collected by clerks of court and registers of deeds. Specifically, whether there is a fee for recording an assignment when the assignment is recorded at the same time as a mortgage dealing with the same transaction.

Requester

Barbara T. Wasson, President, South Carolina Association of Clerks of Courts and Registers of Deeds

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-28-2003-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/03oct-28-Wasson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMA.sTER
ATIDRNEY GENERAL

October 28, 2003

Barbara T. Wasson, President
South Carolina Association of
Clerks of Court and Registers of Deeds
P. 0 . Box 287
Laurens, South Carolina 29360

.
I

Dear Ms. Wasson:

In a letter to this office you requested an interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-21310(3)(Supp. 2002) which provides the fee to be collected by cl.erks of court and registers of deeds in the following circumstances: for recording an instrument which assigns, transfers, or affects a single real estate mortgage or other instrument affecting title to real property or lien for the payment ofmoney, unless it is part of the original instrument when originally filed, six dollars; and if the instrument assigns, transfers, or affects more than one real estate mortgage, instrument, or lien, six dollars for each mortgage, instrument, or lien assigned, transferred, or affected and referred to in the instrument and an additional one dollar for each page for any instrument exceeding one page.... (emphasis added). You referenced a prior opinion of this office dated June 19, 1980 which states: As to the question concerning whether there is a fee for recording an assignment when the assignment is recorded at the same time as a mortgage dealing with the same transaction, Section 8-21-310(3) provides no fee shall be charged for such simultaneous recording.

In your letter indicated that you disagreed with that interpretation and commented that such interpretation is inconsistent with the practice of charging separate filing fees when documents, regardless of their relationship, are filed and indexed separately. You further commented that for blanket assignments you collect six dollars for each mortgage being assigned. As to your question regarding an assignment recorded simultaneously with a single mortgage dealing with the same transaction, Section 8-21-310(3) is quite specific in stating that no fee shall be charged for recording an assignment when the assignment is recorded at the same time as the

1

~~Ee( C .

.D.ENNIS BlJill)ING

":::/4-..u. .'d'..,.~ .

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE : 803-253-6283

Ms. Wasson
Page2
October 28, 2003

mortgage dealing with the same transaction. Again, such provision states that a six dollar fee shall be charged ''unless it is part of the original instrument when originally filed". Therefore, when an assignment is filed at the same time as the single mortgage, no additional filing fee shall be charged. As to the problems you address in your letter which you indicate result from that interpretation, consideration could be given to seeking amendment by the General Assembly in the next session. I

L

Sincerely,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

I

r