When a South Carolina county consolidates fire protection districts, does the new district automatically own the property of the dissolved districts?

Plain-English summary

Calhoun County Council voted on its own motion to consolidate the county's special purpose fire protection districts into a single new district. One predecessor district opposed the consolidation and asserted ownership of its former property. The county took the position that the former districts’ property belonged to the new district under § 6-11-620.

Senator Russell Ott asked the Attorney General about the property dispute. Reading the statute, the AG concluded that its plain language favors the consolidated district. The statute says: "All districts modified pursuant to this article shall assume all properties and liabilities of the antecedent district." The AG read "antecedent" and "predecessor" as suggesting that entirely consolidated districts undergo dissolution. The opinion concludes that "if those procedures were followed, a court may well find that the newly consolidated district has ownership over the previous special purpose district's property." The AG left the final result to a court applying the facts.

What this means for you

If you serve on a county council considering consolidation

The opinion assumes that the county followed Article 3's dissolution and consolidation procedures. Its property conclusion rests on that assumption. Check the procedure and the property at issue before relying on the AG's reading; the opinion leaves the final ownership result to a court applying the facts.

If you sit on a predecessor special purpose district board

The AG reads § 6-11-620 to favor transfer of the former district's property to the consolidated district when the county initiates consolidation under Article 3. The statute separately permits districts that petition for consolidation to prescribe the disposition of property, assets, and liabilities. The AG does not resolve ownership of a particular asset.

If you are a resident or creditor of an affected district

The statute quoted in the opinion says a modified district assumes the antecedent district's "properties and liabilities." This opinion applies that language to a dispute over property. It does not decide service levels, tax rates, or whether a particular debt or contract is enforceable against the new district.

Common questions

Does the opinion decide who owns every asset in Calhoun County's consolidation?
No. It says that if the Article 3 procedures were followed, a court "may well find" that the consolidated district owns the former district's property. The result depends on facts only a court can determine with finality.

Does § 6-11-620 also mention liabilities?
Yes. The quoted statute says modified districts assume "all properties and liabilities of the antecedent district." The AG does not decide the treatment of a particular bond, contract, or invoice.

Can districts that petition for consolidation propose a different disposition?
The statute's third paragraph says that when two or more districts petition the county board for consolidation, their petitions may prescribe the disposition of properties, assets, and liabilities. It also permits the petitions to provide for existing districts to continue as political entities to discharge existing debt.

Can the AG settle disputed facts?
No. Footnote 1 quotes an earlier AG opinion: "this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions." The opinion says only a court can determine the final ownership result on the facts.

Background and statutory framework

The request says Calhoun County Council acted on its own motion. Section 6-11-620 governs the powers, properties, and liabilities of districts modified under § 6-11-610. Its third paragraph lets districts that petition for consolidation prescribe how their properties, assets, and liabilities will be handled.

The statutory construction principles invoked by the AG are standard: ascertain legislative intent (Mitchell v. City of Greenville) and rely on plain text where the language is unambiguous (Hodges v. Rainey). The AG reads the words "antecedent" districts and "predecessor" commissions as suggesting that entirely consolidated districts undergo dissolution.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• S.C. Code § 6-11-610 (special purpose district modification procedures)
• S.C. Code § 6-11-620 (powers, properties, and liabilities upon modification)

Cases:

• Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 770 S.E.2d 391 (2015) (cardinal rule of statutory interpretation)
• Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000) (plain-meaning rule)

Earlier AG opinion referenced:

• Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (April 4, 2006) (AG cannot adjudicate fact disputes)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-the-impact-of-s-c-code-section-6-11-620-on-consolidated-special-purpose-districts/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/1bhg0h13/ottr-os-11047-final-opinion-7-24-2025-houck.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 24, 2025

The Honorable Russell L. Ott
Member
South Carolina Senate
513 Gressette Senate Office Building
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Ott:

Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter requests an opinion addressing the following:

> I am writing to request your opinion concerning the disposition of property purchased by a special purpose fire protection district that was dissolved, and then consolidated by county council with another, larger district pursuant to Article 3, Title 6 of the S.C. Code.
>
> The Calhoun County Council, on its own motion, took the action to consolidate the special purpose fire protection districts in the County into a single special fire protection district and has taken steps to effectuate the commission's decision. One of the previous special purpose fire protection districts opposed the consolidation and has asserted ownership over the former district's property. The Calhoun County Council takes the position that all the property owned by the former special purpose fire protection districts is now the property of the new, consolidated fire district pursuant to S.C. Code § 6-11-620. ("All districts modified pursuant to this article shall assume all properties and liabilities of the antecedent district.) (emphasis added).

Law/Analysis

This opinion will assume for purposes of analysis that county council has followed the procedures authorized in Article 3, Title 6 of the S.C. Code regarding the dissolution and consolidation of special purpose districts.¹ Section 6-11-620 clarifies how the powers, properties, and liabilities of those special purpose districts enlarged, diminished, consolidated or otherwise modified according to the provisions of section 6-11-610 may be altered as a result. As a matter of first impression, this opinion will interpret section 6-11-620 according to the rules of statutory construction. When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the General Assembly's intent. See Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 634, 770 S.E.2d 391, 392 (2015) ("The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible."). Where a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, "the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will." Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). With these principles in mind, this opinion will next examine the text of the statute to ascertain legislative intent. Section 6-11-620 states:

> Each commission created pursuant to the provisions of § 6-11-610 shall have all of the powers of the predecessor commission and in the case of any consolidation, the new commission shall succeed to any and all powers enjoyed by any of the preexisting districts so consolidated.
>
> All districts modified pursuant to this article shall assume all properties and liabilities of the antecedent district.
>
> In instances where two or more special purpose districts petition the county board for consolidation such petitions may prescribe the disposition of the properties, assets and liabilities of the antecedent districts and may prescribe that for the purpose of discharging any existing indebtedness such existing districts shall continue as viable political entities under the government of the commission of the consolidated district.

S.C. Code § 6-11-620. According to the statute's plain language, a modified district "assumes all properties and liabilities of the antecedent district." Id. "Antecedent" is commonly defined in the American Heritage Dictionary to mean "going before; preceding." American Heritage Dictionary 56 (3rd ed. 1993); see also ANTECEDENT, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) ("antecedent (an-ta-see-dont) adj. (14c) Earlier; preexisting; previous. — antecedent (preceding thing)."). Using the words "antecedent" to describe districts and "predecessor" to describe their commissions suggests the General Assembly intended those districts that are entirely consolidated according to sections 6-11-610 and -620 undergo dissolution. Moreover, when the consolidation is initiated by the county governing body, the statute's plain language says the previous districts' properties are assumed by the consolidated district.

¹ See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (April 4, 2006) (“Because this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions.”).

If those procedures were followed, a court may well find that the newly consolidated district has ownership over the previous special purpose district's property. This will, of course, depend on the facts in a given case which only a court can determine with finality.

Sincerely,

Matthew Houck
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General