[{"_1":2,"_95":-5,"_96":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6100885,"mediaKeyId","2811340-1f1d29f4377b8b99d6f2ac6116deaba9","parentId",2811340,"title","Subcommittee refers heirs-property tax bill to Ways and Means after fiscal-office note","audioSeconds",96,"startMs",1306145,"endMs",1402390,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811340-1f1d29f4377b8b99d6f2ac6116deaba9&start=1306&end=1402","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6100885/South-Carolina/Subcommittee-refers-heirs-property-tax-bill-to-Ways-and-Means-after-fiscal-office-note","mediaUrl","author","South Carolina Legislature","date","2025-03-27T00:00:00Z","article","The Domestic Relations, Business and Probate Law Subcommittee moved to adjourn debate on House Bill 40-71 and referred the measure to the Ways and Means Committee after the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs fiscal staff advised that the bill, which amends the Real Property Valuation Reform Act within the tax code, should have been routed to Ways and Means.

The bill would amend the South Carolina tax code to exclude certain heirs' property transfers from being treated as assessable transfers of interest for property-tax purposes, a change intended to prevent reassessments when family members transfer ownership among themselves to clear title. The subcommittee did not take up further policy debate or witness testimony on the measure after the referral motion.

Subcommittee members agreed to the referral. The chair moved to adjourn debate and refer the bill; members responded in the affirmative by voice vote and the motion carried. Committee staff cited a contact from the fiscal-impact staff at the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office that recommended referral to avoid procedural issues on the House floor.

The referral pauses subcommittee consideration so Ways and Means can review any fiscal implications tied to property-tax assessments and valuation reform before the bill proceeds through the House process.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","House Judiciary Committee -- Judiciary Domestic Relations, Business & Probate Laws Subcommittee on H.3569, H.3603 and H.4071 Mar 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 40-71, which would prevent certain heirs' property transfers from triggering property tax reassessments, was removed from debate in subcommittee and referred to the Ways and Means Committee after the state's fiscal staff said the bill amends the Real Property Valuation Reform Act and should go to Ways and Means.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17507,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6100889,"Subcommittee expands protections to include dating partners, minors in protective-order bill",537,765270,1302299,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811340-1f1d29f4377b8b99d6f2ac6116deaba9&start=765&end=1302","/articles/6100889/South-Carolina/Subcommittee-expands-protections-to-include-dating-partners-minors-in-protective-order-bill","The Domestic Relations, Business and Probate Law Subcommittee gave House Bill 3603 a favorable report, 5-0, after testimony from advocates and a senator who said the bill would extend civil protective-order eligibility to people in dating relationships and improve access to orders for minors.

The bill would amend the statutory definition of “household member” to include persons who are cohabitating or have cohabitated and would add a definition of “dating relationship” to cover romantic relationships, courtship or engagement where the relationship’s length, nature, frequency of interaction and time since termination may be considered. The measure would exclude casual social interactions from the definition. The bill also would allow parents, guardians, legal counsel or other appropriate adults to file petitions on behalf of minors seeking protective orders.

Sora Barber of the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault told the committee the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) tracks intimate-partner crimes and that data show “over 50%” of the crimes SLED records are committed by current or former dating partners. Senator Devine, sponsor of a companion bill in the Senate, urged the House to act so both chambers can advance the measure this year: “We strongly would encourage the House to take this up so we can keep both tracks and hopefully get this passed this year,” she said.

Committee members asked whether the change could unintentionally sweep in roommate conflicts or college-student roommates. Senator Devine and other supporters said the dating-relationship definition’s enumerated factors — including the type and length of the relationship and frequency of interactions — are intended to exclude casual or roommate relationships. The bill applies to civil orders of protection in family court and does not change criminal charges.

A roll call recorded affirmative votes from Representative Bernstein, Representative Paula Calhoun, Representative Val Guest, Representative John King and Representative David Martin; the bill received a favorable report and will move forward in the legislative process.

The committee packet included an outline from the Children's Committee that sponsors said summarizes the bill’s scope. Supporters noted South Carolina was one of a small number of states that did not allow dating partners without a common child to seek the stronger civil protections provided by the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act; they said recent changes in a few states have moved that count. The bill’s proponents framed it as closing a statutory gap that leaves some victims of dating violence without access to civil protective orders.

Votes at a glance: favorable report on HB 3603 — roll call 5-0.","House Bill 3603 received a favorable 5-0 report after testimony that the bill would broaden the definition of household member to include dating partners and allow parents, guardians or counsel to file protective-order petitions for minors; sponsors said data show a high share of intimate-partner crimes occur in dating relationships.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6100893,"Panel backs bill letting domestic-violence victims end leases without early-termination fees",732,31160,763930,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811340-1f1d29f4377b8b99d6f2ac6116deaba9&start=31&end=763","/articles/6100893/South-Carolina/Panel-backs-bill-letting-domestic-violence-victims-end-leases-without-early-termination-fees","The Domestic Relations, Business and Probate Law Subcommittee voted 5-0 to give House Bill 35-69 a favorable report after adopting a technical amendment that standardizes the bill's notice and termination window to 60 days.

The bill would add a new section (27-40-350) to state law allowing a “protected tenant” — a tenant or household member who is a documented victim of domestic abuse or violence — to terminate a residential rental agreement within 60 days of a qualifying incident without being liable for early-termination penalties or fees.

The bill’s supporters said the change would help victims who must quickly relocate for safety. Sora Barber, executive director of the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told the committee that orders of protection and restraining orders are often obtained “at the most dangerous time in an abusive relationship” and that 33 states already allow early lease termination for interpersonal-violence victims. “Extending early lease termination rights to survivors will allow the victims the flexibility they need to quickly and affordably relocate to safe housing,” Barber said.

Under the bill, a qualifying incident must be documented by a restraining order or order of protection, or by a conviction of the perpetrator. A protected tenant must provide written notice to the landlord within 60 days of the qualifying incident and relinquish possession; the tenant remains responsible for rent and other amounts due during the 60-day period and prior to termination, except for early-termination fees. Cotenants on the lease remain responsible for rent as it becomes due. If the perpetrator is the sole remaining tenant, the landlord may terminate the lease and pursue damages from that individual.

The bill prohibits landlords from forcing a protected tenant to vacate the premises before the end of a 30-day period in one provision the committee later amended to conform to 60 days, though the bill allows an earlier termination by agreement and permits landlords to seek remedies for damages. It also forbids landlord retaliation against a protected tenant for exercising the early-termination right or for their status as a protected tenant.

Annie Wilson of the South Carolina Apartment Association testified in support, saying property managers want an established mechanism to assist victims. Representative David Martin proposed adding a “safe harbor” provision to shield landlords who act in good faith on documentation; he offered language describing that a landlord “who acts in good faith and reliance upon documentation provided under this section shall not be held liable for terminating or modifying a lease under this section,” and the committee agreed to consider drafting that amendment for full committee.

Following discussion and adoption of a cleanup amendment that aligned time frames to 60 days, the subcommittee conducted a roll-call vote. Representative Bernstein, Representative Paula Calhoun, Representative Val Guest, Representative John King and Representative David Martin voted aye; none opposed. The bill now proceeds with a favorable report to the full committee.

The measure reflects work from last session, when a related bill passed the House with amendments but did not pass the Senate; proponents said the current text reflects negotiated language between the Apartment Owners Association and victims' advocates.

Votes at a glance: amendment 1 (technical cleanup to align 60-day language) — adopted by voice; favorable report on HB 35-69 — roll call 5-0.

Questions for next steps include whether to add Representative Martin's proposed landlord safe-harbor language in subcommittee or at full committee; the committee indicated it would prepare the draft for full consideration.","The South Carolina House subcommittee gave a favorable report to House Bill 35-69, which would let tenants who are victims of domestic violence terminate leases within 60 days of a documented incident without paying early-termination fees; an amendment standardized a 60-day window and the measure passed the subcommittee 5-0.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee refers heirs-property tax bill to Ways and Means after fiscal-office note

Subcommittee expands protections to include dating partners, minors in protective-order bill

Panel backs bill letting domestic-violence victims end leases without early-termination fees