AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 30-2-60 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS.
Summary
H4270 amends South Carolina law to require the removal of certain eviction-related public records from public access after seven years. The bill applies to eviction filings and records made under the state’s eviction and ejectment statutes, including cases that ended in an order of eviction or writ of ejectment, cases resolved by settlement, and cases satisfied by later payment of the judgment, so long as no additional filing has been recorded. Once the seven-year period has passed, those records must be removed from the public index and any publicly accessible files available for public record.
The bill also directs the responsible agency to remove qualifying eviction filings and records that are at least seven years old and have no subsequent filings. It takes effect on January 1, 2027, and is framed as a records-access measure rather than a change to landlord-tenant eviction procedures themselves. The bill title is captioned simply as "Evictions," but its operative effect is on the retention and public availability of court records.
Impact
The bill would add a new Section 30-2-60 to the South Carolina Code, creating a statutory requirement to purge certain older eviction records from public indexes and publicly accessible files. It affects court recordkeeping and public-record access practices for eviction and ejectment matters under Sections 27-40-10 and 27-37-10, and it places an affirmative duty on the responsible agency to remove eligible records after seven years. The measure does not appear to alter the substantive grounds for eviction, but it would limit long-term public visibility of these cases and could affect tenants, landlords, screening companies, and agencies that rely on public court records.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support, with passage in the House and later concurrence in Senate amendments by substantial margins. At the same time, the recorded votes on motions to table amendments and motions to delay or alter debate show that the bill was actively contested and that members disagreed over its details. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed positively enough to advance, but not without significant procedural resistance and debate over its scope and implementation.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to have centered on amendments and procedural motions rather than the basic concept of sealing older eviction records. The House voted to table multiple amendments and a motion to adjourn debate, indicating disagreement over how the bill should be modified or delayed. Likely concerns include the balance between protecting tenants from the long-term consequences of eviction records and preserving access for landlords, courts, and screening entities that use those records to assess rental risk. The absence of committee transcripts limits more precise attribution of arguments, but the voting pattern shows that some members wanted to change or slow the bill while others supported moving it forward.