Could Georgetown County Council tell the clerk of court how to accept child-support payments or withhold funds to force compliance?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether Georgetown County Council could direct the clerk of court’s method for accepting child-support payments. The lawyer’s submitted research also concluded that the council could not withhold funds to make the clerk comply. The Assistant Deputy AG reviewed the letter and expressly concurred in both conclusions.

The AG letter offered little independent analysis. It cited two earlier office opinions: one said council could designate office space for a clerk or probate court but could not alter those officials’ recordkeeping duties; the other said only the clerk could discharge the clerk’s employees. These analogies support the narrow conclusion recorded here. The letter did not identify a particular payment method or analyze a specific budget action, and it was an informal opinion.

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 council prescribe the clerk’s way of taking child-support payments? A: The author agreed with county counsel that it could not.

Q: Could council withhold funds to force the clerk to follow its request? A: The author concurred that council had no such authority in the situation presented.

Q: Did the letter describe a particular payment system? A: No. It gave a short concurrence and cited prior opinions about clerk independence.

Background and statutory framework

The letter cited AG opinions dated July 26, 1984 and February 18, 1983 for analogous limits on council control over the clerk’s office. It supplied no statute or case citation for the specific child-support payment question.

Citations and references

Prior AG opinions discussed: July 26, 1984 (office space and recordkeeping); February 18, 1983 (clerk employees).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-11-1997-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/97sept11scoville.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CH A RL ES MOLON Y C ONDON
ATTO RNEY GENER A L

September 11, 1997

Jack M. Scoville, Jr., Esquire
P.O. Drawer 1250
Georgetown, s.c. 29442
Dear Jack:
You have requested the advice of this Off ice as to whether the Georgetown County Council has the authority to direct the manner in which the Clerk of Court accepts payment of child support. Your letter sets forth your research in which you conclude that the County Council has no authority to direct the manner of payment or to withhold funds for the purpose of trying to obtain compliance with Council's request. After reviewing your letter, I concur in your conclusion. Cf. Ops. Atty. Gen. (July 26, 1984 1 and February 18, 1983 2 ) .

;

\ ,, ,

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, please let me know.

,
7

Yaurs~z:~·
J. · F£of-Y Vrni u(, Jr.
---

I..,_.-----.,.

/

_/ ·Assistant D~puty Attorney General
JESjr

1

County Council may designate Off ice space for Clerk of Court and Probate Court, but it cannot alter the record keeping duties of those officials. 2

Employees of the Clerk of Court
discharged only by the Clerk of Court.

R EMBERT

c. D ENNI S B VI LDll'G

•

~d(~

P OST O FFICE B ox 11 549

•

CO Ll.J MB IA, S.C. 292 11 - 1549

•

may

T ELEPHON E:

be

employed

803-734-3970

•

or

FACS IMIL E: 803- 253-6283