Could a South Carolina attorney use the mortgage-satisfaction statute to release only part of the property?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, the South Carolina Attorney General's office told Greenville County's register of deeds that § 29-3-330(e) concerned satisfaction of a mortgage, not release of only part of the property securing an unpaid mortgage. The question assumed the mortgage would remain outstanding. The office therefore said that subsection did not address the proposed partial release.

The letter left to the attorney and the parties whether some form of mortgage amendment could release part of the property. It said such a release, if permissible, would not amount to satisfaction of the mortgage. The letter was expressly informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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

Did the cited satisfaction statute authorize a partial release? A: The AG said it did not address a release of some property while the mortgage remained unpaid.

Did the AG rule out every method of partial release?
A: No. It left the possibility of an amendment to the mortgage for the attorney and parties to resolve.

Would a permitted partial release count as satisfying the mortgage? A: The opinion said no. It distinguished releasing part of the collateral from satisfaction of the debt and mortgage.

Background and statutory framework

The register of deeds asked about an attorney releasing property under the mortgage-satisfaction provision. The office confined its response to the statute's subject, given that the mortgage would not be paid in full.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed § 29-3-330(e).

Official title

Asking whether S.C. Code Ann. §29-3-330, permits an attorney to release a portion of property from a mortgage.

Requester

The Honorable Judy G. Hix, Register of Deeds, County of Greenville

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-17-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99sept-17-hix.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHA RLES M . C ON D ON
ATTO RNEY GENERAL

September 17, 1999

I

The Honorable Judy G. Hix
Register of Deeds
County of Greenville
County Square
301 University Ridge
Suite 1300
Greenville, SC 29601-3665
Dear Ms. Hix:

L.

,.~

You have asked whether S.C. Code Ann. §29-3-330 (e)(Supp. 1998, as amended by Act No. 67, 1999 S.C. Acts__), permits an attorney to release a portion of property from a mortgage. This section pertains just to satisfactions of mortgages, and according to your letter, the mortgage would not be paid in full. Therefore, this section does not address such releases. Whether the lawyer could release a portion of the property covered by the mortgage via some type of amendment of the mortgage would be a question for the lawyer and the parties to resolve. Such a release, if permissible, would not constitute satisfaction of the mortgage. 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.
~urs very truly, rJ

( ,, fntny VJJ1 l(,-rL-~ 07.(. /!J~
J.. Emory Smith, Jr.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

4

~8;J.- cey;,_;~I LDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

C OLUM BI,\ , S.C. 292 [ 1-1549

•

T ELEPHONE: 80)-734-3970

•

FACS IM ILE: 803-25J -62i!3