Landlords may have “sweeping” new duty to protect tenants in SC

Standard

Apartments’ courtesy officer program may create liability

It is not uncommon for apartment complex managers to exchange reduced rent for the casual services of resident law enforcement officers. These services may include parking law enforcement vehicles on the property, answering security calls regarding incidents in the complex, and walking the property in uniform. A recent South Carolina Supreme Court case* may have imposed liability on apartment complexes employing these tactics to protect tenants from criminal acts of third parties.

Denise Wright was abducted and robbed at gunpoint by two assailants in the common area of Wellspring apartment complex within the Harbison community near Columbia. The incident took place after Wright left choir practice at her church at around 10 o’clock on a September night in 2008. The assailants were never apprehended. Wright had lived at Wellspring since 2003. She became interested in Wellspring because of its proximity to her job and because of recommendations from several church members. She testified that security was an important factor in her decision.

Image may contain: plant, flower and outdoor

Photo courtesy of Facebook.

Wright testified that at the time she signed her lease, a Wellspring manager told her there were security officers on duty. The defendants conceded this fact. Wright testified this representation made her believe Wellspring would be a safe place to live.

An internal Wellspring employee manual stated, “We generally do not provide security for our residents, and employees should never indicate that we do so.” Wellspring had designed a courtesy officer program allowing residents affiliated with law enforcement to receive reduced rent in exchange for spending a minimum of two hours daily of their off-duty time walking the property, answering calls regarding incidents on the property and submitting daily reports to the property manager. The parameters of these agreements were not revealed to other tenants. Wellspring published a “security pager” number in a monthly tenant newsletter. The newsletter also prominently noted that security was a top priority with the complex and advised tenants to call the security pager or Richland County Sheriff’s Department if they saw “anything suspicious”.

There were no courtesy officers at Wellspring on the night of the abduction and robbery; in fact, the last time a courtesy officer had been employed was the previous July. Wellspring had continued to publish the pager number in its monthly newsletter. The tenants were not informed that there were no courtesy officers.

Wright argued, among other things, that Wellspring was negligent in failing to execute its courtesy officer program in a reasonable manner. The defendants argued that they did not owe Wright a duty to provide security and that, even if they did, that duty was not breached, and even if the duty was breached, their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the harm. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed. On a writ of certiorari, the sole question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

“One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if

  1. his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm, or

  2. the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.”

The Supreme Court stated that it is well settled in South Carolina that a landlord generally does not owe an affirmative duty to a tenant to provide security. An “affirmative acts” exception exists, however, where one assumes to act even though under no obligation to do so. Wright’s brief acknowledged that South Carolina case law is not clear as to how the “affirmative acts” exception differs from the “undertaking” exception of the Restatement. The Supreme Court found that Wright’s negligence cause of action invoked the undertaking exception and held that summary judgment should not have been granted. The Court stated that there are questions of fact that a jury must resolve to ascertain whether a duty of care arose in this case.

Justice Kittredge’s strongly worded dissent said that the majority took the common existence of an apartment complex’s security officer program and morphed that limited undertaking into a sweeping duty to protect tenants from unforeseen criminal acts of third parties. The dissent found particularly troubling a lack of proximate cause.

Dirt lawyers who represent owners or managers of apartment complexes should take a careful look at this case with their clients.

*Wright v. PRG Real Estate Management, Inc., South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27868 (March 20, 2019)

Advertisements

Interested in buying a pristine SC island near Charleston?

Standard

The price is $15 million; and the buyer may not be able to develop it

The Charleston Post and Courier reported on March 9 that Long Island, a large, private island between James Island and Folly Beach off the coast of South Carolina is for sale. You can read the article here and the listing here.

long island sc

Long Island, SC. (Photo credit: The Post and Courier)

According to the article, the current owners would like to find a buyer who would put the land under a conservation easement.  This easement would purportedly fit well with Folly Beach’s recent efforts to stem development in vulnerable areas.

The listing indicates the size of the island is about 4,600 acres, including approximately 147 acres of high land, and touts views of Morris Island Lighthouse and the Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Bridge.

Called a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for outdoor enthusiasts to own a unique slice of coastal paradise, the purchase would include an archaeological site eligible for The National Register of Historic Places featuring Civil War artifacts. On the west end of the island is Star Battery, an earthen fort used by Union Forces during the Civil War. The remains of a causeway that leads to nearby Oak Island and dates back to the Civil War, is said to be dry during low tide.

The listing states that the high land is potentially developable and would be an outdoor paradise for fly fishing, wildlife viewing, kayaking and paddle-boarding.

A 2014 article in Forbes states that the island contains an interior roadway providing access to all parts of the island including the archeological site, but it can only be reached by boat. This article indicates the price was $29 million in 2014. The Post and Courier article says the island is almost entirely undisturbed, with no electricity, water service or roads.

The Post and Courier article states that there was an attempt by a builder to develop this island in 1999 into more than 200 home sites. But the proposal would have required a new bridge, the plan for which was rejected.

A challenge now would be to convince a conservation organization to participate, considering the high price tag. The current owners would like to recoup as much of their investment as they can, while protecting the island, if possible, according to the article. It sounds like quite a challenge!

ALTA’s Board approves revision to Best Practices

Standard

Change would require ALTA ID

alta registry

The Board of Governors of American Land Title Association approved a motion on February 21 to revise the Title Insurance & Settlement Company Best Practices to include a requirement for companies to be listed in the ALTA Registry. The amendment is under a 30-day review period ending April 12. Comments may be sent to bestpractices@alta.org.

The proposed amendment to Pillar 1 of Best Practices includes the following requirement:

  • “Establish and maintain a unique ALTA Registry Universal ID (ALTA ID) using the ALTA Registry platform for each settlement office location (subject to those business entity types supported by the ALTA Registry).

ALTA, the national trade association of the land title insurance industry, formally launched the national ALTA Registry in 2017, allowing title insurance agents and settlement companies to communicate with underwriters to confirm their company name and contact information.

Using the ALTA Registry, lenders and their vendors are able to identify title agents, title underwriters and other participants in the closing process and communicate in a timely and consistent manner throughout the mortgage transaction.

Because there has been no unique ID number used across the industry to help match provider records in different databases, communication has often been difficult and costly for the title industry and its customers. This is especially important with new regulations driving vendor oversight requirements and the need for collaboration.

The ALTA Registry is a free, searchable online database of underwriter-confirmed title agent companies and underwriter direct offices. The registered information includes the title agent’s legal entity name, location and contact information. ALTA offers a unique 7-digit identifier, the ALTA ID, which is automatically assigned to each new database record as a permanent ID number and is never changed, reassigned or reused. ALTA ID numbers are available free of charge to title agents and real estate attorneys.

ALTA’s Best Practices is designed to assist lenders in managing third-party vendors. Pillar 1 requires title companies (closing attorneys in South Carolina) to maintain licenses for doing business in the title industry. This includes the license required by the South Carolina Department of Insurance and the ALTA policy forms license. The registry helps lenders determine they are working with legitimate title providers.

SC Court of Appeals takes a deep dive into developer duty case

Standard

Was I’On Village’s developer obligated to convey specific amenities to the HOA?

IOnLafayette

Photo courtesy of Iioncommunity.com

This case was called “convoluted” by our Court of Appeals, and I couldn’t agree more with that characterization! The February 27 decision involved I’On Village in Mt. Pleasant. * The community, founded in 1995, was named for the first mayor of the Town of Sullivan’s Island, Jacob Bond I’On and is a mixed use “new urbanist development”, meaning it consists of charming walkable neighborhoods containing a wide range of housing and job types.

At the heart of the case is the developer’s alleged promise to convey certain amenities in a residential community to the homeowners’ association. Specifically, homeowners allege the developers promised to convey a community dock and creekside park on a lot containing a boat ramp to the owners’ association but instead sold those amenities to a third party. The developers alleged that they promised to convey and did convey a “generic” community dock and creekside park to the association, but not the specific ones located on the boat ramp lot.

This blog will attempt to stay out of the weeds of this 27-page case in an effort to point out only those decisions of the Court that may be of interest to real estate practitioners.

Does a developer have a fiduciary relationship with the homeowners’ association and its members requiring it to convey common areas?

The Court’s answer is “yes”, but the duties of the developer should be determined by a careful reading of the restrictive covenants.

The developer had argued that the “business judgment” rule would control, and that absent a showing of bad faith, dishonesty or incompetence, the judgment of the developer should not be set aside in a judicial action. The Court rejected the argument that the business judgment rule precludes the existence of a fiduciary relationship. Citing an earlier case, the Court stated that the business judgment rule is compatible with the good faith requirement for fiduciaries.

The Court said a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists when one reposes a special confidence in another, so that the latter, in equity and good conscience, is bound to act in good faith with due regard to the interests of the one imposing the confidence.  Citing a second case, the Court said anyone acting in a fiduciary relationship shall not be permitted to make use of that relationship to benefit his own personal interests, specifically, a developer in control of an owners’ association may not make decisions that benefit the developer’s own interest at the expense of the association and its members.

However, the Court held, South Carolina precedent does not impose on developers a generic fiduciary duty to convey title to a subdivision’s common areas to the owners’ association in every case. Rather, the restrictive covenants of the subdivision controls. The Court decided that the record in the case did not support the duty of the developers to convey to the association the specific amenities demanded.

Does the after-acquired property doctrine apply to a recreational easement in South Carolina?

The Court’s answer is “no”.

In February of 2000, the developer conveyed to the owners’ association a “Recreational Easement and Agreement to Share Costs”. Curiously, the developer did not obtain title to the property in question until six months later. At trial, the circuit court issued an order declaring the document invalid and void ab initio.

The developer argued on appeal that the after-acquired property doctrine would have acted to ratify the easement when title was obtained, but the Court of Appeals, finding no South Carolina authority for the proposition that this doctrine applies to the grant of an easement, declined to apply the doctrine to the recreational easement in question.

 May a derivative action be filed by property owners when a developer-controlled owners’ association fails to protect the interests of the owners?

The Court’s answer is “maybe”, but only if the complaint properly outlines the efforts made by the owners to obtain the action sought from the board of directors of the association and the reasons for failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. The pleadings in this case did not satisfy the “demand requirement” to the Court’s satisfaction nor did they allege facts indicating a demand on the board of directors would have been futile. So the Court rejected the derivative action.

Litigators may find fascinating long discussions about statutes of limitations in various causes of action, abuse of process, amalgamation of parties and awards of attorney’s fees, but I’m opting to spare dirt lawyers any discussion of those issues. Read the case if you find those issues captivating. This litigation is not over as the Court of Appeals remanded the case for consideration of several issues by the trial court. My guess is that we will probably visit this case again.

 *  Walbeck v. The I’On Company, LLC, South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5588 (February 27, 2019)