Could a South Carolina nonresident qualify for a 2012 lifetime hunting and fishing license through property owned by an LLC?

Plain-English summary

In 2012, South Carolina briefly offered a lifetime combination license to certain nonresidents born in the state. One condition required the applicant to have held title to South Carolina real estate for at least five years immediately before applying. The Attorney General agreed with the Department of Natural Resources that the applicant had to hold title personally. Ownership through a corporation or limited liability company did not satisfy the statute. The opinion explained that the other conditions, including the applicant’s birth certificate and hunter education, referred to a natural person. The personal property interest served as the nonresident’s connection to South Carolina in place of residence. The license purchase window described in the opinion ended September 30, 2012.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2012. 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 land owned by an LLC make its member eligible for the 2012 license? A: No. The AG said the individual applicant had to hold title personally, even if the applicant owned the LLC.

Q: Did partial ownership of land count?
A: The statute allowed title in fee simple held in whole or in part, but the applicant personally had to hold that title.

Q: How long did the applicant need to own the South Carolina property? A: The 2012 provision required at least five years immediately before the application.

Q: Could nonresidents buy this license indefinitely?
A: No. The provision quoted in the opinion made the license available from July 1 through September 30, 2012.

Background and statutory framework

The Department of Natural Resources asked how to read Section 13 of Act 257 of 2012. The AG relied on the repeated statutory use of “applicant,” the personal qualifications listed alongside property ownership, and the purpose of tying a nonresident to the state.

Citations and references

The analysis centered on Section 13 of Act 257 of 2012 and discussed South Carolina cases on statutory construction.

Official title

Interpreting Section 13 of Act 257 of 2012.” Specifically, “whether the Legislature intended in paragraph (2) for that applicant to personally hold title to the real property or can the applicant hold title through a corporation or limited liability corporation?”

Requester

Buford S. Mabry, Jr., Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-24-2012/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/mabry-b-s-jr-os-9493-9-24-12-lifetime-combination-license-act-257-of-2012-section-13.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON

A TIORNEY GENERAL

September 24, 2012

Buford S. Mab1y, Jr. , Chief Counsel
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 167
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. Mabry:
You advise that the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) seeks an opinion "interpreting Section 13 of Act 257of2012." You note that "[t]his section authorizes that for a specific period of time, the depa1tment may issue a lifetime combination license (heretofore available only to residents) to a nonresident provided certain qualifications are met." You fwther advise that the provision authorizing such licensure expires on September 30, 2012. Your question is "whether the Legislature intended in paragraph (2) for that applicant to personally hold title to the real propetty or can the applicant hold title through a corporation or limited liability corporation?" It is our understanding that DNR has concluded that, pursuant to Section 13 an applicant must personally hold title to the real property and that the applicant may not hold title through a corporation of a limited liability corporation. We advise that such a reading by DNR is consistent with the words of the statute, as well as the legislative intent and is thus correct.

Law I Analysis
Section 13 of Act 257 provides as follows:
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a nonresident may obtain a lifetime combination license which grants the same privileges as a statewide combination license from the Department of Natural Resources at its Columbia office if: (I) T he applicant was born in this State and provides a notarized bi1th certificate from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control; (2) The applicant has held title in fee simple, either in whole or in part, to real property located within this State for at least five years immediately preceding the date of appl ication, and the applicant provides a notarized record of ownership from the appropriate county official in the county where the real property is located; (3) The applicant, if born after June 30, 1979, and having attained the age of sixteen or older, complies with all hunter education requirements of this State and provides a ce1tificate of completion for the course; and (4) The applicant has not been charged for natural resource violations which could result in the suspension of hunting or fishing privileges.

R EMBERT C . DENNIS B UILDING

•

POST 0 FACE B ox 11 549

•

COLUMBIA, SC 292 11- 1549

• T ELEPHONE 803-734-3970 •

FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Mr. Mabry
Page 2
September 24, 2012
(B) This license is available for purchase from July I, 2012, through September 30, 2012. The fee is seven hundred dollars. In resolving your question, a number of principles of statutory construction are applicable. First and foremost, is the cardinal rule that the legislative purpose must prevail, if it can be ascertained. Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., 353 S.C. 31, 577 S.E.2d 202 (2003); State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 ( 1987). A statute must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design and policy of the lawmakers. Caughman v. Cola. Y.MC.A., 212 S.C. 337, 47 S.E.2d 788 (1948). Words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 ( 1990). Any statute must be interpreted with common sense to avoid unreasonable consequences. United States v. Rippetoe, 178 F.2d 735 (4th Cir. 1950). A sensible construction, rather than one which leads to irrational results, is always warranted. Sloan Const. Co., Inc. v. Southco Grassing, Inc., 3 77 S.C. I 08, 659 S.E.2d 15 8 (2008); see also, State ex rel. Mcleodv. Montgonmy, 244 S.C. 308, 136 S.E.2d 778, 782 (1964) ["In seeking the intention of the legislature, we must presume that it intended by its action to accomplish something and not to do a futile thing."]. Finally, this Office will ordinarily defer to the interpretation of the agency charged with enforcement of the Act in question, provided such construction is reasonable. Op. SC. Atty. Gen., September 8, 2005 (WL 2250210). In examining Section 13 of Act 257 of 2012, it is evident that the Legislature intended that, in Subsection (A)(2), the applicant personally hold title to real prope1ty in this State. Subsection (A)(2) expressly provides that the "applicant'' must have "held title in fee simple, either in whole or in part, to real property located within this State for at least five years immediately preceding the date of application, and the applicant provides a notarized record of ownership from the appropriate county official in the county where the real prope1ty is located." When one examines the other criteria for obtaining the license, such as the "applicant" must have been "born in this state and provides a notarized birth certificate," and that the "applicant," if "born after June 30, 1979," must comply with all hunter education requirements, it is obvious that the word "applicant" refers to a natural person. Common sense would dictate, therefore, that the "applicant" must have personally held title to the real property for the period prescribed in Subsection (A)(2), rather than through a corporation or limited liability entity. Words used in a statute must have the same meaning throughout that statute. Travelscape, LLC v. South Carolina Dept. of Rev., 391 S.C. 89, 705 S.E.2d 28 (2011 ). Further, it is clear that the Legislature has sought in providing for the license, to "grant the same privileges" to a nonresident as a resident. Property ownership in the State for the prescribed period of time (five years) provides the nonresident person's attachment to the State, in lieu of his or her actual residence. It is clear that this is the reasoning which DNR employed to require that property ownership must be personal rather than through a corporation. For the reasons outlined above, we defer to DNR's analysis and deem it to be correct.

Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General\
RDC/an