Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Probate Patronage Capital topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Subcommittee clears change to probate code to treat co-op patronage capital as probate accounts

2964546 · April 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 3,914 would amend the South Carolina Probate Code to treat patronage capital accounts held by members of electric or telephone cooperatives as 'accounts' for probate purposes; the subcommittee gave the bill a favorable report, 5-0.

The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee gave a favorable report, 5-0, to House Bill 3,914, a measure that would amend the South Carolina Probate Code to include patronage capital accounts held by members of electric or telephone cooperatives within the statutory definition of an "account" for probate purposes.

Patronage capital accounts represent a cooperative member's share of surplus earnings allocated based on payments for services or capital contributions. The bill would clarify whether those patronage accounts are governed by the probate code's rules for financial accounts, affecting whether funds pass directly to surviving co-owners if the account includes survivorship or into the decedent's estate.

During discussion, a subcommittee member said the change was intended to streamline small, otherwise costly probate matters and gave a local example: a member whose mother died left a $67 check from an entity that would otherwise have required opening a probate estate to collect. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025, if enacted. The presenter reported consultation with the Richland County probate judge, who "didn't see any issues" with the proposal.

The subcommittee voted by roll call; Representatives Bernstein, Paula Calhoun, Guess, John King and David Martin recorded "aye." The clerk recorded the result as five in favor, none opposed. The bill now advances with the subcommittee's recommendation.