Month: October 2021

We have our second Ethics Advisory Opinion of 2021

Standard

It answers two specific trust account disbursement questions

Ethics Advisory Opinion 21-02 deals with two questions posed by a lawyer concerning a trust account disbursement issue.

The lawyer received settlement funds in a significant amount subject to a valid lien, but the exact amount of the lien has not yet been determined. The parties agreed that the funds will not be disbursed until the lien amount is determined. It is expected that the funds will be held for more than a year. The fee agreement provides that the attorney will receive a contingency fee of a specific percentage plus costs. The client wishes to earn interest of the funds.

The questions presented to the Ethics Advisory Opinion are: (1) Is the lawyer permitted to open a separate account for the funds; and (2) Should the entire amount be held in trust or the entire amount minus the attorney’s fees and costs?

The Committee begins with an examination of South Carolina Appellate Court Rule 412 (a)(3) which requires an IOLTA account for “pooled nominal or short-term funds of clients or third persons.” The opinion states that there is no requirement for a long-term trust account to be an IOLTA account.

Rule 412 (d)(1) says a lawyer must exercise good faith judgment in determining whether funds are nominal or short-term. The rule then states that client or third person funds shall be deposited into an IOLTA account unless funds can earn income for the client more than the costs incurred to secure such income. If the funds can be invested in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of the client at an expense less than the costs of securing that income, then a separate account is permitted.

The Committee opined that a separate account is permitted in this case because the funds in question are not nominal, and they are not short-term because they are expected to be tied up for more than a year. The Committee advised that since the attorney has the duty of keeping client funds secure, it would be the best practice to invest the funds in a government insured account. The Committee then reminded the attorney that all normal trust account recordkeeping rules will apply to the separate account.

Finally, the Committee opined that the attorney is free to disburse attorney’s fees and costs immediately. Since those amounts are not subject to the lien, leaving those funds in the account would amount to improper commingling in violation of Rule 1.15(a).

Is it time to end single-family zoning?

Standard

Although politics are important to me, I see absolutely zero benefit in discussing politics on social media or in this blog. For that reason, I raise this topic with some apprehension and definitely without taking a political position. I raise it for educational purposes only.

I invite you to put this term in your favorite search engine: “terminating single-family zoning”. You will find articles that range in tone and opinion from, “The conservative case for ending single-family zoning” to “Dems are set to abolish the suburbs”. The arguments are all over the place! 

My purpose in raising this topic is simply to ensure South Carolina real estate practitioners have it on their respective radars. Like most extreme changes, this one is likely to be very slow to make it to The Palmetto State, but it’s important for us to be prepared to address if and when it arrives at our borders.  

One interesting perspective comes from Journal of the American Planning Association (Volume 86, 2020 – Issue 1) which argues that the privilege of single-family homes “exacerbates inequality and undermines efficiency” by making it harder for people to access high-opportunity places and contributing to shortages of housing in expensive regions. In many cities, the paper argues, single-family zoning prevents housing development where development would be most beneficial and instead pushes expansion into denser, lower income neighborhoods, onto polluted commercial corridors, and into the undeveloped land outside city boundaries. The authors have no illusion that making this change will be simple or that every city can handle the controversy the same way.

Arguments against eliminating single-family zoning include the idea that most Americans prefer detached single-family houses, that it creates more aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, that it protects against excessive density, and that eliminating it will be impossible. Many arguments are made against constructing a housing tower next to existing detached homes. But counter arguments are made that removing single-family zoning might reduce rather than increase the prevalence of high-rise development because tall buildings are a response to scarcity of development-friendly parcels.

The conservate argument against single-family zoning is apparently that there is no greater distortion of the free market than local zoning codes, and that there are few bureaucracies doing more harm to property rights and freedom than local zoning officers.

See what I mean when I said the arguments are all over the place?

That being said, jurisdictions in California, Washington State, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Maryland are apparently considering loosening zoning restrictions. In one of his first actions after surviving an election seeking to oust him from office, California Governor Gavin Newsom essentially abolished single-family zoning throughout California and signaled his approval of legislation seeking to increase California’s housing production.

I doubt we will deal with this issue any time soon, but proactively becoming familiar with the arguments on all sides will only improve our ability to discuss the issues when the time comes.

Secret Service Thwarts $21 million scam

Standard
Photo from secretservice.gov

The United States Secret Service announced in a press release dated September 1 that on August 23, it was successful in thwarting a real estate related business email compromise (BEC) scheme that sought to defraud a purchaser of more than $21 million.

The scheme attempted to divert closing funds to a fraudulent bank account. After quick action by the Secret Service and its private sector partners, the funds were returned to the victim.

Please refer to this Underwriting Memorandum issued by Chicago Title’s South Carolina State Office on September 20 warning that fraudulent wiring instruction schemes are on the rise.

These schemes typically employ altered or fictitious payoff statements. The fraudster often impersonates a mortgage broker, lender, borrower, or an agent of the borrower to request a copy of the payoff statement. Alternatively, the fraudster may intercept the payoff statement by a hacking or phishing ploy.

Armed with the payoff statement, the fraudster will create and transmit a bogus “updated” payoff statement with wiring instructions intending to divert the funds to the fraudster. The statement may also alter contact information so that telephone calls to verify payoff information will be answered by the fraudsters.

Chicago Title’s memorandum advises closing attorneys to take the following proactive measures to minimize the risk that payoff funds will be diverted:

  • Obtain payoff statements early so they can be properly reviewed and verified.
  • Verify banking information and payoff amounts directly with the payee using known, trusted numbers rather than information from the payoff statement.
  • Refer to prior payoff statements from the same payee to confirm the banking information matches.
  • Maintain repetitive wire information within systems or databases to use for future wires. Lock this information to restrict alterations.
  • If it is impossible to make a verbal confirmation by a known trusted telephone number, consider sending overnighting a check.

Be careful out there, closing attorneys!

EAO 21-01 says it’s ethical to pay $249 to be on lender’s closing attorney list

Standard

The first Ethics Advisory Opinion of the year is noteworthy for South Carolina real estate practitioners.

Here is a brief summary of the facts:  In a residential refinance, the lender’s loan estimate package provided the name of a specific South Carolina licensed attorney that the bank “identified” as one who could close the loan. The package expressly said the borrower could “shop for (the borrower’s) own providers” for legal and other services.

The borrower informed the bank that a different lawyer had been selected, but the bank’s second set of loan estimate documents again identified a different lawyer and again said the borrower could chose its own provider.

When the borrower asked why another lawyer’s name was identified, the bank responded that the borrower’s chosen lawyer could sign with a third-party company that the bank had contracted with to produce loan forms for an annual fee of $249 to be included on the list.

The borrower’s lawyer did not enroll in the program but did close the loan.

The question to the Ethics Advisory Committee was whether a lawyer may participate in a service provider network for an annual fee of $249 to be listed as an “identified” service provider without violating S.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(c)?

Rule 7.2 (c) generally provides that a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services. One exception to the rule is that a lawyer may pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by the Rule.

The Committee pointed to Comment 7 which states that a communication contains a recommendation if it endorses or vouches for a lawyer’s credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional qualities. The bank’s form in this case only provides contact information for participating lawyers and indicates the lawyers on the list have been identified. And the borrower is told in each instance that he or she can choose a different lawyer.

The Committee said these limited statements hardly match up the verbs and nouns used to describe a “recommendation” in the comment because the language in the forms says nothing substantive about the credentials, abilities, competence, character, or professional quality of the listed lawyers.

The Opinion further stated that participation in the network appears to be open to any real estate attorney and that the fee appears to be reasonable considering the enrollment, onboarding, and maintenance charges for including attorneys in the network.

The short answer to the question was “yes”, a lawyer may pay the fee and participate in the network of legal service providers and be “identified” as a possible service provider.

It is interesting that the facts included this statement: “The package and disclosures are assumed to be compliant with federal and state requirements for loan applications and attorney-preference notices.” The Committee answered the very specific question put to it and clearly has no authority to address federal law.