South Carolina Bill 4813: Increases Magistrate Court Fees and Costs

Starting January 1, 2027, the cost of accessing South Carolina’s magistrate courts will shift. Under the newly enacted Bill 4813, which was signed into law by the Governor on May 15, 2026, residents and legal entities filing civil actions will face a revised fee structure. These changes, passed by the South Carolina General Assembly during its 126th session, represent a significant adjustment to the financial mechanics of the state’s lowest-level courts.

For individuals or businesses initiating civil litigation, the most immediate impact will be felt at the clerk’s window. The cost for issuing a summons and complaint, along with obtaining a judgment—whether or not a formal hearing occurs—is set to increase to sixty-five dollars. This adjustment is part of a broader legislative effort to recalibrate the funding streams that sustain local judicial operations.

Funding the Infrastructure of Justice

The legislative intent behind these increases is explicitly tethered to the operational needs of the counties. According to the text of the act, revenue generated from these fee hikes must be used to supplement, rather than supplant, existing funds. The mandate is clear: the money is earmarked to ensure that magistrate courts have the necessary facilities, personnel, and security to function effectively.

Beyond the primary filing fee, the cost for landlord-tenant proceedings—an area of magistrate court activity that frequently impacts local housing stability—will rise to forty dollars. This covers a range of actions, including notices to quit, eviction orders, and the recovery of rents. Additionally, the assessment on civil filings, excluding restraining orders, is being standardized to ensure a consistent flow of revenue to the state’s judicial department.

Critics of such fee increases often point to the potential for creating barriers to justice for low-income litigants. When the cost of filing a civil action rises, those with limited financial means may find themselves priced out of the ability to resolve disputes or contest evictions legally. Proponents, however, argue that the courts cannot provide adequate service, timely dockets, or secure facilities without a fee structure that reflects modern operational costs.

Raising the Bar for Judicial Appointments

The legislation also addresses the qualifications of those presiding over these courts. Section 3 of the act modifies the requirements for magistrate eligibility examinations. Since 2001, candidates seeking appointment as a magistrate have been required to pass a basic skills test administered in cooperation with the technical college system. Under the new law, the window of validity for these examination results has been adjusted to eighteen months before and after the appointment, providing more flexibility for the senatorial delegations responsible for recommending nominees to the Governor.

By extending the shelf-life of these test results, the state aims to streamline the appointment process, ensuring that the pool of eligible candidates remains current without requiring repetitive testing for those who have already demonstrated their competency. This administrative change reflects a pragmatic approach to judicial staffing, balancing rigorous standards with the realities of recruitment in a changing legal landscape.

The Road to 2027

With the legislative process now concluded, the focus shifts to the implementation phase. County treasurers and court administrators have until the start of the new year to align their systems with the updated fee schedules. While the law was ratified in mid-May 2026, the delay in the effective date provides a necessary buffer for the state to communicate these changes to the public and for clerks of court to update their internal procedures.

As January 1, 2027, approaches, the real-world impact of these fees will become a subject of scrutiny for those who interact with the magistrate system. Whether these funds successfully translate into improved court security and staffing remains an open question, one that will be answered as counties begin to integrate these new revenue streams into their fiscal cycles.