South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act

1
South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act

• SECTION 30-2-330. Removal of social security
  numbers and other identifying information from
  official records filed by register of deeds or
  clerk of court or county.
• (A) A person preparing or filing a document to be
  recorded or filed in the official records by the
  register of deeds or the clerk of court of a
  county may not include an individual's social
  security, driver's license, state identification,
  passport, checking account, savings account,
  credit card, or debit card number, or personal
  identification (PIN) code, or passwords in that
  document, unless otherwise expressly required by
  law or court order or rule adopted by the state
  registrar on records of vital events. A loan
  closing instruction that requires the inclusion
  of an individual's social security number on a
  document to be recorded is void. A person who
  violates this subsection is guilty of a
  misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed
  five hundred dollars for each violation.

2
FINANCIAL IDENTITY FRAUD AND IDENTITY THEFT
PROTECTION ACT Effective
January 1, 2009

• 30-2-310 prohibits a public body (as defined in
  30-1-10(B) and includes all state, county, and
  municipal courts or registers of deeds) from
  collecting or making available to the public an
  individuals social security number containing
  six digits or more unless authorized by law to do
  so or unless the collection of the social
  security number is otherwise imperative for the
  performance of that bodys duties and
  responsibilities as prescribed by law. 30-2-320
  of the Act lists specific exemptions to the
  collection and use of social security numbers and
  personal identifying information 1 by a public
  body. Several of those exemptions of
  significance to the Probate Court are provided
  below.
• 1 personal identifying information includes an
  individuals social security, drivers license,
  state identification, passport, checking account,
  savings account, credit card, or debit card
  number, or personal identification code (PIN) or
  passwords in that document, unless otherwise
  expressly required by law or court order or rule
  adopted by the state registrar on records of
  vital events.

3
FINANCIAL IDENTITY FRAUD AND IDENTITY THEFT
PROTECTION ACT Effective
January 1, 2009

• Exemptions
• A recorded document in the official records of
  the County
• A document filed pursuant to a court Order,
  warrant, or subpoena
• A document transferred to another governmental
  entity for the purpose of collecting a debt,
  including a debt collected pursuant to the Setoff
  Debt Collection Act

4
FINANCIAL IDENTITY FRAUD AND IDENTITY THEFT
PROTECTION ACT Effective
January 1, 2009

• 30-2-330(A) of the Act specifically places the
  burden of compliance on the individual filing the
  document with the court or register and not on
  court officials. A person who files a document
  with the court or register containing personal
  identifying information in violation of the
  provisions is subject to a misdemeanor,
  punishable by a fine not to exceed 500.00 for
  each violation. Therefore, the exemptions
  contained in 30-2-320, the hold harmless clause
  contained in
• An individual may request that a register or
  clerk remove a social security number or personal
  identifier contained in an image or copy of an
  official record placed on a publicly available
  internet website used by a register or clerk.
  The request must be in writing and must
  specifically site the location and identifier
  which must be removed or redacted. A clerk of
  court or register of deeds has no duty to inquire
  beyond the written request to verify the identity
  of an individual requesting redaction. A fee
  must not be charged for the redaction pursuant to
  the request.

5
Administrative Order

• The Probate Court shall in all respects attempt
  to respect the privacy of all those persons and
  entities doing business in our office as set
  forth in the SC FINANCIAL IDENTITY FRAUD AND
  IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION ACT (30-2-310 et
  seq.). However, in some instances, the Court
  will need to collect certain personal
  identification information (PINFO) in order to
  comply with its statutory duties under state and
  federal law.
• MARRIAGE LICENSES
• Social security numbers or alien identification
  numbers are required by SC Law (20-1-220) on
  marriage license applications which are kept
  separately from public records. For those not
  having social security numbers, other government
  issued forms of identification are collected to
  verify the identification and the age of
  applicants.
• ESTATES
• We may need to collect PINFO in order to confirm
  the nature and value of estate assets however,
  the PINFO will be kept separately from the public
  file, destroyed, or returned to the Personal
  Representative.
• PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
• We will collect the PINFO of protected persons,
  guardians, and conservators in order to secure
  and oversee the assets of protected persons under
  this courts jurisdiction. If collected, the
  PINFO will be kept separate from public access.
• INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS
• We will collect the Social Security number of
  any person involuntarily committed to identify
  the individual or to make required reports to
  governmental agencies. Attorneys appointed to
  represent patients must provide PINFO for tax
  purposes. All records in this division are
  confidential and not available for public viewing
  pursuant to Title 44 of the SC Code.
• PAYMENT OF COURT FEES/COSTS/FINES
• When payment is made by check or credit card,
  the account numbers will be processed in order to
  insure proper payment. No copies of transmittals
  will be kept in the public record.
• IT IS SO ORDERED!
• _________/S/______________
• DEBORA A. FAULKNER
• PROBATE JUDGE
• January 1, 2009

6
Growth 60 123 75 142
85 181
7
Greenvilles Growth
The population of individuals 60 and above
increased from 59,857 in 2000 to 71,038 in 2006.
This is a numerical change of 11,181 and a
percentage change of 18.7
POPULATION CHANGE IN GREENVILLE FOR PERSONS 65
YEARS AND OLDER

• 44,573 -2000 Census
• 48,796 -2005 Census
• 4,223 -Total Population Change
• 12,329 -Deaths
• 14,990 -Natural Increase
• 1,562 -Net Migration

8
Projections of Alzheimer's Disease in South
Carolina 2005 2030
9
(No Transcript)
10
MEDIATION FRIENDLY STATUTE

• SC Code of Laws Section 62-3-912
• SC Code of Laws Section 62-3-1101

11
SC Code of Laws, 62-3-912

• Private agreements among successors to decedent
  binding on personal representative
• Subject to the rights of creditors and taxing
  authorities, competent successors may agree among
  themselves to alter the interests, shares, or
  amounts to which they are entitled under the will
  of the decedent, or under the laws of intestacy,
  in any way that they provide in a written
  contract executed by all who are affected by its
  provisions. The personal representative shall
  abide by the terms of the agreement subject to
  this obligation to administer the estate for the
  benefit of creditors, to pay all taxes and costs
  of administration, and to carry out the
  responsibilities of his office for the benefit of
  any successors of the decedent who are not
  parties. Personal representatives of decedents'
  estates are not required to see to the
  performance of trusts if the trustee thereof is
  another person who is willing to accept the
  trust. Accordingly, trustees of a testamentary
  trust are successors for the purposes of this
  section.
• Nothing herein relieves trustees of any duties
  owed to beneficiaries of trusts.

12
SC Code of Laws, 62-3-1101

• Effect of approval of agreements involving
  trusts, inalienable interests, or interests of
  third persons.
• A compromise of a controversy as to admission to
  probate of an instrument offered for formal
  probate as the will of a decedent, the
  construction, validity, or effect of a probated
  will, the rights or interests in the estate of
  the decedent, of a successor, or the
  administration of the estate, if approved in a
  formal proceeding in the court for that purpose,
  is binding on all the parties including those
  unborn, unascertained, or who could not be
  located. An approved compromise is binding even
  though it may affect a trust or an inalienable
  interest. A compromise does not impair the rights
  of creditors or of taxing authorities who are not
  parties to it. A compromise approved pursuant to
  this section is not a settlement of a claim
  subject to the provisions of Section 62-5-433.

13
PROBATE MEDIATION
Analysis of the data

• Debora A. Faulkner,
• Probate Judge of Greenville County

14
Participation

• 35 out of 46 counties enrolled in the program
• 14 counties reported data
• 21 counties have no reports
• Unclear whether they conducted a mediation and
  mediation is not yet concluded, whether there
  were indeed no mediations or whether the forms
  were not submitted
• Total cases reported - 80

15
County Number of cases Greenville 51 Orange
burg 6 Charleston 4 Richland 4 Cherokee
2 Dorchester 2 Horry 2 Pickens 2 Spa
rtanburg 2 Abbeville 1 Beaufort 1 Colle
ton 1 Jasper 1 Lexington 1
16
The Data

• Weighted responses have been taken from the Court
  Report and Evaluation form
• Responses from participants were so small as to
  be statistically insignificant
• Responses are weighted as follows (rounded to
  nearest 1/10,000)
• Strongly agree 1
• Strongly disagree 5

17
The Overall Data

• Results
• Process was helpful 2.7250
• Efficient use of Court time 2.8500
• Cost 2.8750
• Outcome 2.7825

18
Individual County Data

• Greenville

Process was helpful 2.7255 (equal)
Efficient use of Court time 2.9020 (lower)
Cost 2.8431 (higher)
Outcome 2.8040 (lower)
19
Individual County Data

• Orangeburg

Process was helpful 3.0 (lower)
Efficient use of Court time 3.0 (lower)
Cost 3.0 (lower)
Outcome 3.0 (lower)
20
Individual County Data

• Charleston

Process was helpful 3.0 (lower)
Efficient use of Court time 3.0 (lower)
Cost 3.0 (lower)
Outcome 3.0 (lower)
21
Individual County Data

• Richland

Process was helpful 2.5 (higher)
Efficient use of Court time 2.5 (higher)
Cost 3.0 (lower)
Outcome 3.0 (lower)
22
Individual County Data

• Abbeville
• Colleton
• Jasper

Process was helpful 3.0 (lower)
Efficient use of Court time 3.0 (lower)
Cost 3.0 (lower)
Outcome 3.0 (lower)
23
Resolutions

• 24 were fully resolved
• 6 were partially resolved
• 8 were not resolved
• 37.5 resolved partially or in full 10 not
  resolved

24
Conclusions

• Statistically, may not have an adequate sampling
• Recorded entries may not reflect actual sentiment
• Lots of straight 3s (dead center)
• Data is court sourced rather than participant
  sourced

25
Conclusions

• Nothing in the data is worse than a 3
• Mediation is receiving no worse than a median
  reception
• Mediation should be a permanent tool in the
  Probate Court toolbox
• Data does not contain anything overtly negative
• To the contrary, sentiment average of all 4
  questions is between 2.7 and 2.9