Month: September 2026

What South Carolina Real Estate Attorneys and Paralegals Need to Know About the New Anti-Squatter Act

Standard

South Carolina’s recently enacted “anti-squatter” law provides real estate practitioners with a valuable tool to help property owners quickly regain possession of residential property from certain unauthorized occupants. The legislation creates an expedited process for removing true squatters while preserving existing protections for legitimate tenants. It also strengthens landlords’ rights during eviction appeals. For reference, the text of the Act can be found here.

Why does this matter to real estate clients? Before this law, an owner who discovered an unauthorized occupant in what was supposed to be a vacant home often faced a lengthy and expensive court process to evict the occupant. Under the new statute, property owners may seek expedited relief through magistrate court when an individual occupies residential property without permission and has no legitimate tenancy rights. As long as the property owner can provide a verified (signed by the property owner on his or her own knowledge) petition to file, the new law authorizes a magistrate to order a quick (potentially as quickly as same-day) ex parte eviction of a true squatter – someone who has no legitimate right – such as a residential lease – to be in the property.

For South Carolina real estate attorneys and paralegals, this could open up opportunities to provide practical value to clients. For example:

• Assisting sellers who discover unauthorized occupants in their residential investment property.
• Helping purchasers of vacant homes, inherited property, foreclosed/REO houses, or investment properties, to evict unauthorized folks and obtain possession more quickly. Care still needs to be taken in investigating whether the occupant may have a legitimate lease agreement from the former owner.
• Advising landlords on whether an occupant is a true squatter or should instead be handled through traditional residential landlord-tenant eviction procedures.
• Lender’s counsel may want to discuss with their lender or servicer clients who could be dealing with vacant collateral residential properties.

Actual possession remains an important issue during underwriting and closing. Title agents should continue to ask about any occupants in possession at closing, and discuss with an underwriter if needed.

The new law also addresses an older existing issue in which tenants who were appealing an eviction could effectively “game” the system by staying in the property without paying rent while their appeal was pending. Now, tenants who have appealed an eviction order are required to sign an affidavit that they will continue paying rent, or face prompt eviction if they do not do so.

An additional provision of the new law applies to RV park operators and opens up more robust actions the operators may take to remove park guests who violate park rules, do not pay, use illegal drugs, or disturb other guests.

The bottom line is that the new law provides a faster and more practical path for removing unauthorized occupants and should be viewed as another tool in the real estate practitioner’s toolbox.  Attorneys and paralegals who understand the distinction between squatters and tenants, and who proactively educate clients about the new procedure, will be in a good position to  help protect real estate transactions, reduce delays, and strengthen long-term client relationships, while remaining mindful of the title and possession issues that may still arise.

Can an Attorney be Disciplined for Failing to Produce a Title Insurance Policy? 

Standard

If you have ever practiced law, you’ve experienced that one crazy, busy week where so much was going on that an important, but not urgent, task got pushed to the back burner. Most of us have had such a task slip completely out of our consciousness for longer than we would care to admit.  These are the things that make us sit upright in bed at 2:00 A.M. Isn’t the practice of law fun? 

Real estate practice, perhaps more than any other area of the law, involves countless small but vital tasks that must be taken care of after the closing table has been left behind. Some of these tasks are obviously urgent such as timely recording documents and sending out disbursements. Other matters, such as pursuing releases or delivering the final title policy to the insured, may seem less urgent.  Well, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently issued a disciplinary opinion that should be a reminder that failing to follow through on the latter categories can still put a license at risk.   

According to the Court’s opinion, the attorney who was disciplined operated a solo law practice that handled at least some real estate closings. In connection with a commercial closing, the attorney collected $10,803.00 in title policy premium and attorney’s fees. During a particularly busy time, their practice forgot to issue the title policy following closing. As the attorney began closing the practice and moving to inactive status, the title policy remained outstanding and was never issued. However, her client did not forget.  The client’s attempts to contact the attorney about the status of the policy went unanswered.   The result was a complaint and the ensuing disciplinary action. 

In reviewing the case, the Court noted the attorney’s failure to produce the title policy and failure to respond to the client constituted violations of Rules:1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15(a) (safekeeping of client property), 1.16(d) (return of client property), and Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

This opinion reminds us that the title insurance premium in a real estate transaction comes from client funds. An attorney may serve as both the settlement agent and the title insurance agent in the same transaction. When that occurs, disbursing the title insurance premium before issuing the promised policy raises concerns about the attorney’s obligations to properly handle client funds and complete the representation. 

My experience working for a title insurance underwriter has been that most insureds are reasonably patient with the delivery of title policies, but that patience disappears when they do not receive timely responses from counsel. Lenders generally get very demanding when they realize that title policies are missing from their file at audit times, because FNMA/FHLMC guidelines may dictate financial consequences to the originating lender or servicer. A lender often contacts the attorney and then the title insurance company seeking production of the policy, but their next step is often the filing of a Bar complaint. 

In this disciplinary action, the Supreme Court publicly reprimanded the inactive attorney.   The Court required restitution be made to the client for the title premium and attorney’s fee and to reimburse ODC for its fees and costs. The Court further required that the attorney complete Ethics School before returning to active practice. 

For the full opinion, click here: 

https://www.sccourts.org/media/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28351.pdf