Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probate Patronage Capital topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee clarifies treatment of cooperative patronage capital in probate code
Summary
The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee gave House Bill 3,914 a favorable report to amend the South Carolina Probate Code to include patronage capital accounts held by electric and telephone cooperative members within the statutory definition of an "account."
Get email alerts on the Probate Patronage Capital topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee gave House Bill 3,914 a favorable report after brief discussion. The bill would amend the South Carolina Probate Code to include patronage capital accounts held by members of electric and telephone cooperatives within the statutory definition of an "account" for probate purposes, clarifying how those funds pass on a member's death.
Patronage capital accounts reflect a cooperative member's share of surplus earnings, allocated annually based on payments for services or capital contributions. Under current law those accounts are not explicitly listed among financial accounts governed by probate and nonprobate transfer rules. By adding patronage capital to the Probate Code definition of "account," HB 3,914 would make clear whether such funds pass directly to surviving co‑owners (if the account includes survivorship) or into the estate if survivorship is not present.
The sponsor told the subcommittee that the change could avoid requiring a probate estate for very small amounts. The sponsor cited a constituent example in which a $67 check would otherwise have required opening a probate estate, and the presenter said the Richland County probate judge reviewed the measure and "didn't see any issues with this." The bill includes an effective date of July 1, 2025, if enacted.
After discussion the subcommittee voted by roll call to give HB 3,914 a favorable report. The roll call recorded Representatives Bernstein, Calhoun, Guess, King and Martin voting "aye," for a 5–0 favorable vote.
The amendment or text revisions discussed were limited to definitional clarification; no budgetary or programmatic funding changes were discussed during the committee meeting.
