Could Lexington School District Four sell or lease school property without county consent or at less than fair market value?

Official title

Requesting advice as to the applicability of S.C. Code Ann., §59-19-250 (1976)  to Lexington County School District Four.

Requester

The Honorable Joe Wilson, Senator, Lexington County

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether South Carolina's school-property sale and lease rule applied to Lexington County School District Four. The 1995 informal letter said it did, finding no local-law exception. Under the provision quoted, trustees had to obtain consent from the county board of education, or the county governing body where no such board existed, before selling or leasing school property.

The letter added two qualifications. A separate provision applied to a school building no longer needed for school purposes, but a fee-simple conveyance under it still had to comply with the consent rule. State Board of Education approval might also be needed for land bought with state funds after 1952, though the AG did not know whether this property met those facts. Prior AG opinions, it said, disallowed a donation but did not require a fair-market-value price under the sale provision.

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: Did the district need outside consent to sell or lease school property? A: The letter said the statutory consent requirement applied to District Four; it found no exception in the district's local laws.

Q: Could the district donate the property? A: The letter cited prior AG opinions saying property could not be donated under this provision.

Q: Was fair market value mandatory?
A: The letter said earlier AG opinions did not require fair market value for a transaction under the provision. It did not assess a particular proposed price.

Q: Did the letter decide whether State Board approval was required here? A: No. It noted a possible approval rule for certain land acquired with state funds after 1952, but lacked facts about the parcel.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read the general school-property statute alongside rules for unneeded school buildings and state-funded land. Its answer about District Four's transaction stayed conditional where the letter did not know the property's funding history or proposed terms.

Citations and references

The letter discussed the school-property consent provision, the unneeded-building provision, and the rule for certain land bought with state funds.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-30-1995-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995oct30wilson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 30, 1995

The Honorable Joe Wilson
Senator, Lexington County
P.O. Box 142
Columbia,. South Carolina 29202
Dear Senator Wilson:
You have requested the advice of this Office as to the applicability of S.C. Code Ann., § 59-19-250 (1976) to Lexington County School District Four. This statute provides, in part, as follows: The school trustees of the several districts may sell or lease school property, real or personal, in their school district whenever they deem it expedient to do so and apply the proceeds of any such sale or lease to the school fund of the district. The consent of the county board of education or, in those counties which do not have a county board of education, the governing body of the county, shall be- first obtained by the trustees desiring to make any such sale or lease .... This statute appears to apply to the school district, and I have located no exception to its terms in the local laws for that district See Ops. Atty. Gen. (November 14, 1984, March 13, 1979). If the property consists of a school building which is no longer needed for school purposes, then § 59-23-310 applies {Ops. Atty. Gen. April 10, 1979); however, §59-23-310 expressly makes the conveyance of such property in fee simple subject to compliance with § 59-19-250. I also note that § 59-19-190 requires the approval of the State Board of Education for the " ... reassignment or disposal of
[parcels of land acquired for public school purposes] after 1952 with any State funds .... " see Ops. Atty. Gen. (July 11, 1980). I do not know whether the property in question falls under these terms of §59-19-190.

Rl-\lllloRT

c DE:-;:-:1s Bt ILDl:-;G

•

PosT OmcE Box 11549

•

CoLL"~BJA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSl\11LE: SO:l-25~-6283

The Honorable Joe Wilson
October 30, 1995
Page 2
The letter that you attach indicates a question about whether a transaction covered by§ 59-19-250 must be for fair market value. Opinions of this Office issued in the 1970's held that property may not be donated under this provision, but they state that fair market value is not required for the transaction. {Ops. Atty. Gen. March 9, 1977 and July 2, 1975). 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 vecy
,,,.-_, truly,

·:_

~~:., ...

.~7

/J·~ .·· ;tnofY Sm:j.th, Jr.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General
JESjr.

I
i

~
' %

I
I