Could Fairfield County’s clerk of court personally keep county deed-stamp tax receipts as salary subsidy?

Plain-English summary

Fairfield County’s attorney asked whether the clerk of court could retain deed-stamp receipts as personal compensation under a reported county-council arrangement. The Assistant Deputy AG said the money should be deposited with the county, not retained by the clerk. Former § 12-25-30 had directed county documentary tax receipts to the general fund; the 1996 replacement provision, Section 12-24-90, directed state and county shares of a deed-recording fee to their respective funds. Nothing in the newer provision authorized personal retention.

The author explicitly accepted the requester’s factual account only for purposes of analysis and declined to verify it. The letter distinguished the repealed documentary-tax law from the replacement fee law and identified itself as informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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 clerk keep the receipts as compensation? A: The AG said no on the facts presented; the receipts belonged in the designated public funds.

Q: Had the old documentary-tax provision still been in force? A: No. The letter said it had been repealed in 1996 and discussed the replacement deed-recording fee.

Q: Did the AG find that the clerk had actually kept funds improperly? A: No. He said factual investigation was outside the office’s opinion role.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion compared former § 12-25-30, repealed in 1996, with Section 12-24-90’s allocation of a deed-recording fee. It used both to reject personal retention of county receipts.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: former § 12-25-30; Section 12-24-90.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-6-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/97oct6goode.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHA RLES M O L ON Y C ONDON
ATTORNEY GEN ERAL

October 6, 1997

Kenneth G. Goode, Esquire
Fairfield County Attorney
P.O. Box 488
Winnsboro, SC 29180
Dear Mr. Goode:
You have requested the advice of this Off ice as to whether the Clerk of Court may retain personally County deed stamp taxes under the circumstances described below. According to your letter, the Clerk and County Council had an agreement by which the deed stamp tax would be deposited into the general fund, but the tax would then be paid from that fund to the Clerk as a subsidy to her salary. Subsequently, due to changes in a computer system, the Clerk began depositing deed taxes into her checking account and then writing a check to herself when deed stamps needed to be purchased. The following conclusions are based upon this information, but we express no opinion as to the accuracy of the information as factual investigations are beyond the scope of opinions of this Office. Ops. Atty. Gen. December 12, 1983. The above monies should be deposited with the County and not be retained by the Clerk as personal compensation. Former s.c. Code Ann. § 12-25-30 (1976), prior to its repeal in 1996, plainly states that the county documentary tax required by chapter 25 of Title 12 of the Gode "shall be deposited into the General fund of the County." 1 Act No. 458, Part II §57, 1996 s.c. Acts (repealing legislation). Section 12-24-90 (Supp. 1996), which was also included in Act 458 but not referenced in your letter, now 1

The " ... primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature." South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. Dickinson, 288 S. C. 134, 341 S. E. 2d 134 ( 1986). "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and we must apply them according to their literal meaning." Id.

A.

R EMBERT

c. D ENN l~T O FFICE Bo x 11549

94'~

•

COL UMB IA. S.C. 292 11- 1549

•

TELEPHON E:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE : 803-253 -6283

Kenneth G. Goode, Esquire
October 6, 1997
Page 2
provides for a deed recording fee composed of State and County portions which is to be credited to the State and County funds as provided therein. Nothing in §12-24-90 suggests that its fee may be personally retained. Al though different fees are involved, these conclusions about §12-24-90 and former §12-25-30 are consistent with a previous opinion of this Office which concluded that the safest legal course of action for clerks of court would be for them not to retain the compensation from the sale of State Tax Commission documentary stamps. Ops. Atty. Gen. (January 8, 1987).

I

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. If you have further questions,

me know.

General
JESjr