Would South Carolina's AG settle a boundary dispute between a special district and another local government?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, the South Carolina Attorney General's office declined to settle a boundary dispute between a special-purpose district and another political subdivision. A legislator asked whether the office could become involved for districts created before or after home rule. The answer was the same for both: the office did not normally advise or intervene in such disputes, and resolving the boundary would require factual investigation outside its opinion role.

The letter also said state law generally did not authorize the office to issue opinions to local governments or special districts, subject to limited situations. It did not determine the disputed boundary. 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 it matter whether the district predated home rule? A: The office said no. It declined to intervene whether the district was created before or after home rule.

Did the AG identify the correct boundary?
A: No. It said a factual investigation would be needed and the office could not adjudicate or investigate the facts through an opinion.

Did the opinion say the AG normally advises local districts directly? A: No. It described only limited exceptions to its general rule against advising local governments and special districts.

Background and statutory framework

A legislator asked about the office's role in local boundary disputes. The response addressed the office's authority and fact-finding limits, leaving the underlying geography unresolved.

Citations and references

The opinion cited §§ 1-7-90, 1-7-100, and 1-7-110 in describing the office's advisory role.

Official title

Asking: “May the Attorney General become involved in settling boundary disputes (a) for an area/district created before home rule and (b) for an area/district created after home rule?”

Requester

The Honorable Harry F. Cato, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-3-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99sept-3-cato.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CH A RLES M . C ON DON
ATIO RNE Y GENE RAL

September 3, 1999

The Honorable Harry F. Cato
Member, House of Representatives
407 Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

I

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Representative Cato:
You have asked for an opinion of this Office on the following issues: "May the Attorney General become involved in settling boundary disputes (a) for an area/district created before home rule and (b) for an area/district created after home rule?"

L

Generally, State law does not authorize this Office to issue opinions to or advise county or municipal governments, special purpose districts, or similar entities. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-7-90; 1-7-100; 1-7-110. There are, however, certain limited situations where this Office will advise such entities. South Carolina Attorney General, Office Manual, page 55. Unfortunately, the issue presented in your request would not appear to be one of those situations. This Office does not normally advise or intervene in a boundary dispute between a special purpose district and another political subdivision. This would be the case whether the district was created before or after home rule. The settling of this type of dispute would not only involve a factual determination, but also a factual investigation. 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. Op. Attv. Gen. dated October9, 1985. Unlike a fact-finding body such as a legislative committee, and administrative agency or a court, we do not possess the necessary fact-finding authority and resources required to adequately determine difficult factual questions such as the proper boundaries of political subdivisions. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific

/)

R EMBERT

c. DEN NIS B UILDL'IG

t<-t~ ~ZIA,

•

P osT O FFICE Box 11549

•

C OLL'M BI A. S.C. 2921 1-1 549

•

T ELEPH ONE : 803-734-3970

•

FACSl~ llL E: 803-25 3-6 283

The Honorable Harry F. Cato
Page2
September 3, 1999

questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With best personal regards, I am

(

I
I

L
I

Sincerely yours,

84.f.~
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General