Month: June 2025

Privacy Protection Acts set to take effect January 2026

Standard

Our story began when Governor McMaster signed Act 56 of 2023, commonly known as the Law Enforcement Personal Privacy Protection Act and the Judicial Personal Privacy Protection Act. This Act represented a significant legislative development at the intersection of personal privacy and public access to real property records. While the goal of this legislation was to protect the privacy of law enforcement officers and judges, it carried important implications for the practice of real estate law, particularly in how attorneys conduct title examinations, advise clients, and navigate public records. Many other states had enacted similar legislation with mixed results. “The Redaction Bill,” as passed, also imposed significant burdens on county offices. Registrars needed a system of redacting information upon request, yet it was unclear how someone who needed access to the information could obtain it. 

The Redaction Bill grants active and former law enforcement officers and judicial employees to right to request redaction of personal information from publicly accessible state and local government websites. It was designed to protect these public servants from targeted harassment or threats. The redacted information includes names and home addresses, which are vital to maintaining the integrity of real property records. 

For those in the title industry, the Redaction Bill posed an immediate concern: how would the redaction of identifying information affect title searches, chain of title evaluations, or the ability to confirm ownership and encumbrances? County recorders and advocacy groups such as the Palmetto Land Title Association urged the general assembly to slow down and consider changing the bill to accomplish its main objective while minimizing its impact on real estate transactions. Despite these warnings, the legislature pushed the Redaction Bill through to the Governor’s desk with an effective date of July 1, 2024. 

For attorneys handling real estate transactions, the redaction of names and property identifiers raises a number of legal and practical issues. First and foremost is the risk to title integrity. If an individual’s name or parcel ID is redacted from the public record, attorneys may face increased difficulty in confirming ownership, assessing liens, or determining if any litigation is pending involving the property. This difficulty may increase the time and cost of due diligence and could expose clients to hidden encumbrances or title defects.

Moreover, attorneys acting as title agents or representing lenders could be placed in a precarious position when disbursing closing proceeds based on incomplete or obscured information. The redaction of key ownership data may also affect notice requirements under state law. For example, if the name on a deed is completely redacted, then how is a title examiner supposed to verify the ownership of the property they are searching? 

Finally, county officials—such as registrars of deeds and clerks of court—may each adopt different redaction protocols in the absence of a unified state-level system. This lack of consistency could result in a patchwork of record keeping practices, with varying impacts depending on jurisdiction. 

Despite pushing through the Redaction Bill, legislators were amenable to working with concerned groups to address the concerns raised by this bill. Recognizing that a fix was needed, the SC State Senate added a provision to the budget bill delaying the effective date to July 1, 2025, allowing extra time to make the needed changes.  Initially introduced as Senate Bill 126, Act 4 of 2025 (“Fix Bill”) was signed into law just last month.  Most critically, the Fix Bill changed “redaction” to “restriction”. The Fix Bill also limits the definition of “Disclosed Records” to those that are placed on a publicly available internet website. This clarification means that names and tax map numbers must still appear where they are embedded in formal documents—such as deeds, mortgages, easements, and affidavits—even if that information is restricted from online directory search results. This crucial carve-out preserves the reliability of title records and ensures that attorneys can still conduct necessary due diligence using official sources.  The final key change of the Bill is that it named certain people who may still access the restricted information, specifically including title insurers, their affiliates, or title insurance agents and agencies.

The Fix Bill delays the effective date to January 1, 2026, giving government agencies extra time to establish procedures, and ensuring that the real estate legal community has an opportunity to adjust workflows, educate staff, and advise clients on potential implications. It will be interesting to see how each of the counties handles the restriction of information within their own systems.

What Should Attorneys Do Now ?

Realtors and real estate attorneys will likely be the first to be asked about this bill and how one may avail themselves of this privacy protection. In addition to knowing about this Bill in general, South Carolina closing attorneys should begin reviewing internal procedures and client advisories to prepare for the January 2026 implementation. While we don’t yet know the mechanics each county will be using to restrict information, some key considerations include:

  • Title Search Protocols: Update search procedures to account for redacted records. Train staff to request and cross-reference official document images, not just searchable indexes.
  • Client Education: Inform institutional clients, especially lenders and developers, about the potential for privacy-related gaps in online records and the need for more thorough due diligence.
  • Engagement with Recorders: Develop working relationships with local registers of deeds to understand how each county plans to implement redaction requests and what access will be retained through in-office systems.
  • Legislative Monitoring: Stay informed about any additional regulations or guidance issued by the state to refine implementation, as further clarification may come through administrative rulemaking. 

For real estate attorneys, the Fix Bill introduces both challenges and obligations. While it mitigates the most serious risks to property records, attorneys must remain vigilant in adapting their practices to protect clients and ensure the continued reliability of title. A proactive approach built on awareness, communication, and procedural readiness will be essential as these laws take full effect. This journey also highlights the importance of advocacy groups such as the Palmetto Land Title Association and their work to protect the title industry in South Carolina.

SC Supreme Court clarifies realtor liability under Disclosure Act

Standard

Call me a little strange, but I am always interested to read about real estate contract disputes. An odd fact of my career is that my trial history is bookended by Magistrate Court-level trials involving real estate contract disputes. The first was a seriously thrilling fight (to a baby lawyer) over $1500 in earnest money on a flat fee that certainly did not reflect the legal hours expended. My final was in defense of a client’s failure to disclose “mold” around a leaky water heater. For the record, I am undefeated in Magistrate’s Court, despite it being the only Court a judge has ever demanded I produce my bar card. I was wearing a suit and had a briefcase and everything!   

The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that may be interesting to real estate attorneys and litigators concerning the liability of real estate agents. The Court’s opinion in Isaacs v Onions held that there is no right of private action against a seller’s real estate agent under the South Carolina Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act for the seller’s failure to disclose a property defect. The Court also made a finding that the buyer could not have reasonably relied upon general statements made by the seller’s agent concerning the findings of a prior CL-100. 

The facts of the case were as follows: The Onionses (“Sellers”) listed their home in Litchfield Plantation with the Selling Agent (“Agent”), and filled out a Residential Property Condition Disclosure denying any “present wood problems caused by termites, insects, wood destroying organisms, dry rot[,] or fungus.” The property was listed and promptly came under contract. During the course of the due diligence, the first contract buyers obtained an inspection report revealing the absence of a vapor barrier in the crawl space in some areas and noted damp soil conditions. That report recommended further inspection.

In response to the buyers’ inspection, the Oniones retained a pest control company to inspect the crawlspace.  The company issued a report finding elevated moisture readings, wood destroying fungi, and some moisture damage. They recommended installation of vapor barrier, a dehumidifier, and coverage of the outside vents, and treatment for mold, for an estimate of $4,595.00. Instead, the Sellers retained a handyman to address the vapor barrier, replace insulation, remove debris, and install a crawl space fan for $706.00. The first buyers had separately commissioned a CL-100 which showed lesser moisture readings, no active wood destroying fungi, but recommended a fan.

The first contract ultimately fell through, the property was re-listed, and the Isaacs became interest in the property ultimately entering into a contract to purchase it. Early in the transaction, Agent provided copies of the Property Condition Disclosure Form, the prior inspection reports, disclosed the scope of repairs.  Agent sent an email to the Isaacs sharing that the first buyers “CL-100 was done yesterday and from what I understood it was good, but I can obtain the report if/when necessary as the sellers paid for it.”  

The Isaacs declined to request a copy of the prior CL-100 as they intended to commission their own CL-100. The Isaac’s CL-100 revealed significantly diminished moisture levels and no evidence of any issues.  The Isaacs proceeded to closing.

Two days after closing, the crawl space flooded after heavy rains.  A week later inspection reports revealed standing water, very high moisture readings, and active fungi. The Isaacs filed suit against the Sellers, Agent, and their CL-100 inspector. They specifically alleged fraud and misrepresentation against Agent, as well as violations with regard to misinformation on the Property Condition Disclosure Form.

The Court found that while the South Carolina Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act creates a private right of action against the sellers for violations, it does not create a private right of action against real estate agents. The Court pointed out that there would be other causes of action available to the buyer in that situation.

The Court also noted that the Isaacs had been provided reports that provided ample evidence of a possible issue in the crawl space and that the real estate agent’s statement that she had heard that the CL-100 was “good” could not have been something that the Isaacs reasonably relied upon in their decision to purchase the home. In fact, the Isaacs testified that they did not request the prior CL-100 because they intended to obtain their own. 

The Court’s ruling seems to resolve (for now) that real estate agents are not subject to suit under the Act and that vaguely encouraging comments from selling agents are not to be relied upon by buyers, particularly when there is evidence of potential issues with the property. Perhaps the Isaacs faired better against the Sellers in this action on better facts.