Real Estate

Renaissance Tower condo owners file federal lawsuit

Standard
Renaissance Tower (left), Myrtle Beach, SC

This blog previously discussed the evacuation of Renaissance Tower condominium project in Myrtle Beach on October 7 because the building was deemed unsafe. The concern was reported to be the structural foundation of the 22-story building which is located just north of Ocean Lakes Campground.

The Sun News reported on October 14 that Horry County Code Enforcement posted a sign outside the resort that the building is unsafe, and occupancy has been prohibited. The paper also reported that residents received an evacuation letter from the management company stating that the steel frame within the foundation is in substantially worse condition than previously believed. The damage was apparently discovered during a repair project that had just begun.

A proposed federal class action lawsuit has now been filed by condo owners alleging the board of directors of the homeowners’ association and the management company of the project knew for years about steadily worsening damage to structural steel components supporting the building but failed to further inspect and repair the damage. These failures allowed the damage to worsen, according to the 34-page complaint.

The complaint further alleges that the building management company had known since 2016 that the foundation of the building was corroding. In 2016, an engineer was hired to perform an inspection and reported that the foundation was in “bad shape” and needed to be repaired or replaced. The complaint alleges that no repairs were made in response to this report.

After the collapse of the Champlain Towers South building in Surfside, Florida in June of 2021, according to the complaint, the HOA board asked the engineer to return and present repair options. The engineer determined that the conditions had worsened. On October 7 of this year, contractors determined that the steel was so corroded that the building was not structurally sound. Thus, the evacuation was ordered.

The complaint alleges that despite being left homeless, stuck paying for temporary housing, or deprived of income from a tenant, Renaissance owners now face more than $2 million assessment for repairs to the building’s structural steel as well as an unknown additional assessment for temporary shoring to make the building safe.

Like the Surfside, Florida building that collapsed, the Renaissance tower is an ocean-front project that is structurally supported by steel and concrete. The building remains unoccupied. The complaint alleges that some owners are homeless, and others are living in tents. Sales of units have also been stalled.

I would not be surprised to see additional inspections and lawsuits involving ocean-front projects.

Columbia house purportedly sold as an NFT

Standard
149 Cottage Lake Way – one of the first NFT-based residential home sales for the US

When bizarre topics are discussed in my family, we often employ the famous quote by actor Chris Tucker from the funny movie Rush Hour: “Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?” I’m not sure I understand the words I am typing here, so we’ll add links below for you to read for yourself.

A company called Roofstock onChain claims to have sold a house located in Columbia, South Carolina using NFT technology. The address of the house is revealed: 149 Cottage Lake Way, and it’s located in my zip code. If you Google that address, you’ll see lots of pictures of the house and articles about this transaction.

I had to start with the basics to attempt to get a handle on this topic. An NFT is a non-fungible token, a digital asset that can come in the form of art, music, in-game items, videos, and other assets. They are bought and sold online using cryptocurrency. The NFT allows the buyer to own the original item. NFTs have been described as physical collector’s items, only digital. Instead of receiving an actual painting, the buyer gets a digital file that represents exclusive ownership.

To trade in NFTs, the buyer must first have a digital wallet that allows storage of cryptocurrency and NFTs. The wallet must be funded with cryptocurrency. After that step, there are apparently several NFT marketplaces to explore.

So how did this house purchase take place? An LLC was created for the ownership of the three-bedroom recently renovated home. (And here are the words that I don’t understand.) Several of the articles say something along the lines of: The house was sold on the Roofstock onChain NFT marketplace by transferring the home identity to an Ethereum address owned by the buyer.

Dirt lawyers, I ask you, do you see any problems with this transaction? Did anyone search the title? Was there a physical inspection of the home? Was there a survey? Were the taxes prorated?  Did a South Carolina licensed attorney close the transaction?  I have more questions, but I bet you can come up with a list of your own.

I’ll continue to read about this topic and attempt to keep readers informed. In the meantime, here are some links for your education:

The future is now? Columbia becomes blockchain testing ground with house bought as an NFT

Blockchain Makes Deeper Inroads Into Real Estate As Roofstock Announces Its First NFT Home Sale

Are NFTs the future of home ownership?

How NFTs Could Change Real Estate

Blockchain Facts: What it is, how it works, and how it can be used

Roofstock onChain – https://onchain.roofstock.com/

Welcome to Ethereum – https://ethereum.org/en/

Congressional method for funding CFPB held unconstitutional

Standard

A three-judge panel of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on October 19 that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure is unconstitutional. *

Rather than receiving its funding through periodic Congressional appropriations, the CFPB is funded directly from the Federal Reserve, which is funded through bank assessments. This funding method was intended to remove some congressional influence on the bureau.

Most federal agencies receive annual appropriations from Congress that are determined each year through legislative negotiations. Many agencies have separate funding sources like fees and assessments collected from the entities they regulate. The arrangement, like CFPB’s, which provides for a continuous funding source, is common among financial regulatory agencies like the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Many commentators have suggested that this opinion will not stand because nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from funding agencies in a variety of ways. The case is expected to be appealed to the full Fifth Circuit and after that to the Supreme Court. But while this holding stands, it renders all CFPB actions from its inception vulnerable to challenge.

*Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. v. CFPB

Myrtle Beach condominium project evacuated

Standard

Several news sources have reported that Renaissance Tower condominium project in Myrtle Beach was evacuated on October 7 because the building was deemed unsafe. The concern is apparently the structural foundation of the 22-story building which is located just north of Ocean Lakes Campground.

The Sun News reported on October 14 that Horry County Code Enforcement posted a sign outside the resort that the building is unsafe, and occupancy has been prohibited. The paper also reported that residents received an evacuation letter from the management company stating that the steel frame within the foundation is in substantially worse condition than previously believed. The damage was apparently discovered during a repair project that had just begun.

This blog has discussed unsafe condominium projects earlier, most recently in June.  

I have recommended previously that all South Carolina dirt lawyers subscribe to the DIRT listserv run by Professor Dale Whitman of the University of Missouri at Kansas City Law School. Two updates from that service in June relate to problem high-rise projects.

First, a 50-unit condominium building in Waukesha, Wisconsin, Horizon West, has been ordered to be demolished by the Waukesha City Council. Professor Whitman reports that the building’s steel structure has been compromised by water infiltration, much like the collapsed Surfside project near Miami, and is considered a risk for collapsing.

The residents don’t have the funds to pay for the demolition, and the insurance company is taking the position that the building should be repaired, not demolished. The cost of the demolition has skyrocketed because of the presence of asbestos.

The units were valued at $90,000 to $140,000 according to Zillow, prior to the discovery of the defects. During the current high-priced housing market, it is not likely that the property owners will be able to replace their housing even if they receive their full replacement costs from insurance. It is a very sad situation, but, of course, not as sad as an actual collapse resulting in the loss of lives.

Second, Florida’s legislature has passed a law that requires regular building inspections and requires homeowners’ associations to maintain reserves. The act was unanimously passed by both houses, and Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law on May 26th.

Under the new law, inspections are required when a condominium building reaches 30 years of age and every ten years thereafter. For buildings within three miles of the coast, the first inspection is required at 25 years of age.

In addition, mandatory structural integrity reserve studies are required every ten years under the new law, and reserves are required to be maintained based on the studies. The power of the HOA to waive reserves was removed, effective December 31, 2024.

This legislation is encouraging and should be considered in South Carolina, particularly because of the existence of our numerous high-rise coastal condominium projects. The Renaissance project is an example.

The only downside I see about such legislation is that it will make condominium living more expensive and may price some retirees and lower-income individuals out of the market entirely. But, logically, the cost of maintenance should be factored into every residential property purchase. The ability of an owners’ association to waive reserves and thereby kick the maintenance can down the road is a dangerous proposition.

Housing Authority must exercise discretion in eviction

Standard

Real estate cases can be sad, and this is one of those. City of Charleston Housing Authority v. Brown* Involved the eviction of a mother from a public housing apartment because her son committed a crime.

The facts, according to the Court, are not in dispute. Katrina Brown renewed her lease with CHA in 2015. Brown’s minor son and daughter were listed as residents and members of her household. Early in 2016, Brown’s son, who was 17 at the time, was arrested a mile away from his home carrying a gun. Two weeks later, CHA sent an official 30-day notice of eviction to Brown. The notice informed Brown that her eviction was based on the lease’s prohibition against violent criminal behavior.

At the magistrate’s hearing, a Charleston detective testified that Brown’s son confessed to an attempted armed robbery that occurred two days before his arrest and approximately one mile from the housing complex. Brown testified that her son was being held in jail, and if he was able to make bond, he would live with his grandmother.

The magistrate found that evictions based on criminal activity provisions of housing lease agreements must be determined on a case-by-case basis and denied the application for eviction based on the testimony as well as factors from federal law.  On appeal, the circuit court remanded the case for factual findings and analysis regarding whether Brown’s eviction was warranted under 42 U.S.C. §1437(1)(6), the federal statute governing public housing leases, which is colloquially known as the “One-Strike Rule.”

The “One-Strike Rule” requires federally-funded public housing authorities and private landlords renting their properties to tenants receiving federal housing assistance to include a provision in all leases stating that drug-related criminal activity, as well as criminal activity that threatens other tenants or nearby residents, are grounds for eviction, regardless of the tenant’s personal knowledge of the criminal activity. The strict-liability, no-fault rule was premised on the idea that public housing tenants are entitled to homes that are “decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs.

In May of 2017, the magistrate issued an order evicting Brown, finding her son’s actions created good cause for eviction. At an appeal hearing before the circuit court, Brown argued that non-drug related criminal activity can only be grounds for eviction if the activity constitutes a present threat to the residents of the public housing facility and occurred in the immediate vicinity of the facility. She also argued that CHA was required to demonstrate that they used discretion in evaluating the circumstances and alternatives to eviction of an innocent tenant before evicting the entire household. She asserted that CHA made no showing that it exercised discretion.

The circuit court affirmed Brown’s eviction. The Court of Appeals found that Brown’s son’s actions created good cause for the eviction. The Court cited a 2007 Massachusetts case that set out the policy reason for the “One-Strike Rule”: Tenants of public housing developments represent some of the most needy and vulnerable segments of our population, including low-income families, children, the elderly, and the handicapped. It should not be their fate, to the extent manifestly possible, to live in fear of their neighbors.

The Court further held that the threat need not be “ongoing” to justify eviction. Then the Court turned to an interesting aspect of federal law, holding the “One-Strike Rule” does not automatically require eviction. Rather, the housing authority must demonstrate that it exercises discretion in the decision to evict. The record must reflect that the housing authority knew it could refrain from invoking the “One-Strike Rule” under the circumstances.

The case was remanded to the magistrate for a hearing to determine whether CHA exercised discretion in deciding to pursue the eviction of Brown’s entire household for the criminal actions of her son.

I’m sure you understand what I mean about this case being sad. It is sad for the mother to be evicted for the actions of her son, and it is sad for the other residents of the facility to be subjected to such criminal activity. This is a difficult situation, and I’m encouraged to know that discretion must be exercised.

*South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion No. 5941 (August 24, 2022)

Myrtle Beach article points to current fraud cases

Standard

The Myrtle Beach Sun News published an article on September 5 entitled, “They were conned out of their dream beach home, lawsuit says. These are common SC scams.”  You can read the article here.

Those of us who have worked in the real estate industry for years have heard of (or been bitten by) various iterations of real estate fraud schemes. These schemes change routinely as the fraudsters become more sophisticated. Thankfully, we are becoming more informed and therefore more sophisticated ourselves. But this article is an excellent reminder.

The article recounts the tale of a North Carolina couple, Jeremy and Candice Pedley, who spent years saving before finally acting on their dream of owning a family vacation home in North Myrtle Beach. The Pedleys entered into a contract last November to purchase a condo in in a gated community for $380,000. Unfortunately, a third party hacked into the real estate agent’s emails, impersonated their closing attorney, and convinced he Pedleys so wire their funds to a bank account in Rock Hill.

The hacking effort requested the exact number the Pedleys were expecting to wire, $86,183.81. This fact convinced the Pedleys that the fraudulent instructions were legitimate. According to the article, they have been able to recover about $36,000 of the lost funds. They were unable to complete the purchase of their dream condominium.

Columbia attorney Dave Maxfield is representing the Pedleys in a lawsuit attempting to recover their funds. According to the article, Maxfield told the Sun News that banks should do a better job stopping fraudulent accounts from being used, and real estate agents and attorneys need to warn clients about the pitfalls of wiring funds.

The article then details a few other common scams outlined by The S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs.

One such scheme creates fake rental listings promising low rent, immediate availability, and great amenities. The goal is to trick renters into transferring funds before they are tipped off that the listings don’t exist.

Another scheme notifies consumers that they have won the lottery, requesting, of course, some sort of fee or tax to receive the alleged winnings. Pressure is applied to “act now”.

Finally, the article discussed fake debt collectors. Fraudsters impersonate government authorities and attempt to convince consumers to pay off debt. These schemes typically request the target to pay a fraction of the amount they owe in return for full debt forgiveness. Threats of arrest are often used to apply pressure.

Please keep yourself and your staff members educated about all the current schemes. Your title insurance company should be a great source of current information. And please give your staff members permission to slow down and use the time they need to think through the facts of your transactions. I believe time is the key. The very smart individuals you employ, if properly armed with the necessary information and education, should be able to thwart most of these schemes, if they are given sufficient time to analyze the communications that hit their inboxes daily.

Failure to search title leads to disastrous result

Standard

Fourth Circuit unpublished opinion weighs in on SC tax sale issue

South Carolina appellate courts will overturn tax sales on the flimsiest of technicalities. In a recent unpublished opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a tax sale was not overturned, but the result was almost the same for the tax sale purchaser who failed to search the title.

Remember that an unpublished opinion has no precedential value, but this case is particularly interesting to South Carolina dirt lawyers who understand the necessity of searching titles. Thanks to my friend and real estate litigator extraordinaire Jim Koutrakos who sent this case to me.

Guardian Tax SC, LLC v. Day* involved a Charleston County tax sale. Ralph and Virginia Day bought property in Charleston in 1991. In 2006, the Days mortgaged the property to Bank of New York Mellon. Between 2005 and 2007, the Days failed to pay their federal income taxes, and beginning in 2010, they failed to pay -county taxes.

In 2016, the Day’s title was subject to three interests: (1) the county tax lien; (2) the mortgage; and (3) the federal tax lien. By operation of law (S.C. Code §12-49-10), the county tax lien took priority. The mortgage had a higher priority than the federal tax lien because it was recorded first. Charleston County sold the property to Guardian through a tax sale that year.

The County did not notify the bank or the United States of the tax sale, but it did publish notice in a local newspaper. Guardian’s purchase of the property satisfied the County lien and generated approximately $1.6 million in excess proceeds. The Days owed approximately $3.5 million to the bank and their federal tax liabilities totaled approximately $2.9 million.

After the tax sale, the County searched the title and notified the Days and the bank of their one-year statutory redemption period. The County did not notify the United States nor inform Guardian of the notices it sent to the Days and the bank. Neither the Days nor the bank redeemed the property. At some point after the expiration of the period of redemption, Guardian searched the title and discovered for the first time the interests of the bank and the United States. Guardian filed a quiet title action which was removed to federal court by the United States.

Guardian, the bank, and the United States filed competing motions for summary judgment. Guardian and the bank argued over the excess proceeds, and Guardian argued that the federal tax lien was extinguished by the tax sale or, alternatively, the United States should be awarded a 120 day right of redemption.

The district court agreed with the bank that it was entitled to the proceeds and agreed with the United States that its lien was valid and that a right of redemption was not appropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the tax sale was nonjudicial and that the United States’ lien survived the tax sale because it did not receive the required notice. Further, because of the lack of notice, the redemption period never began to run.

Both courts rejected Guardian’s argument that the federal lien should be extinguished because of South Carolina equitable principles because federal law governs the enforcement of federal tax liens. The Court of Appeals quoted the District Court’s jab that there is “nothing inequitable about the outcome” because Guardian could have avoided the result by engaging in due diligence prior to the tax sale by searching the title, a “minimal burden.”

*United States District Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Unpublished Opinion No. 21-1411 (August 23, 2022)

SC Supreme Court issues one more opinion on the Episcopal church controversy

Standard

….despite the fact that the same Court declared “this case is over” in April

This is the fifth blog about the controversy surrounding the Episcopal Church and its properties in South Carolina. The subject of this post is the case the South Carolina Supreme Court decided on August 17* which follows an opinion in April** that declared definitively “this case is over”. It seems the Court found a reason to disagree with itself. And, once again, the Court declares that there will be no remand and that the case is over.

Church schisms are difficult in many ways, and the real estate issues are particularly thorny. This dispute began in 2010 when the Lower Diocese of South Carolina, after doctrinal disputes, dissociated from the National Episcopal Church. The parties have been involved in extensive litigation in state and federal courts for the years that have followed the dissociation. As dirt lawyers, we don’t have to figure out the doctrinal issues, but we do have to be concerned with the real estate issues.

As I said in April, my best advice to practicing real estate lawyers is to call your friendly and intelligent title insurance underwriter if you are asked to close any transaction involving Episcopal church property. In fact, call your underwriter when you deal with any church real estate transaction. They will stay current on the real estate issues involving churches.

The current controversy involves whether the parishes adopted the national church’s “Dennis Cannon”. This church law provides that all real and personal property owned by a parish is held in trust for the national church. The actions taken by each church with respect to the Dennis Cannon have been examined ad nauseum by our Court.

In April, the Court ruled that 14 of the 29 churches would be returned to the national body. The opinion re-filed in August ruled that six more churches are allowed to keep their properties. After this decision, 21 parishes will remain with the local entity and eight will be returned to the national entity.

Without belaboring the analysis, the following parishes will maintain their properties according to the April opinion. The statuses of these congregations do not change with the August opinion:

  • Trinity Episcopal Church, Pinopolis
  • The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Parish of Saint Philip, Charleston
  • The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Parish of Saint Michael, Charleston
  • Church of the Cross, inc. and Church of the Cross Declaration of Trust, Bluffton
  • The Church of the Epiphany, Eautawville
  • The Vestry and Church Warden of the Episcopal Church of the Parish of St. Helena, Beaufort
  • Christ St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Conway
  • The Church of the Resurrection, Surfside
  • The Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Radcliffeboro
  • The Vestry and Church Wardens of St. Paul’s Church, Summerville
  • Trinity Episcopal Church, Edisto Island
  • St.Paul’s Episcopal Church of Bennettsville, Inc.
  • All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc. Florence
  • The Church of Our Savior of the Diocese of South Carolina, John’s Island
  • The Church of the Redeemer, Orangeburg

The following churches were ordered returned to the National Church by the April opinion but allowed to maintain their properties by the August opinion:

  • The Church of the Good Shepherd, Charleston
  • St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church, Hartsville
  • The Vestry and Church Wardens of the Episcopal Church of the Parish of St. John, John’s Island
  • St. David’s Church, Cheraw
  • The Vestry and Church Wardens of the Parish of St. Matthew, St. Matthews, Fort Motte
  • Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, Charleston
  • Vestry and Church Wardens of the Episcopal Church of the Parish of Christ Church, Mount Pleasant
  • St. James Church, James Island

The properties of the following parishes are held in trust for the National Church, according to both opinions.

  • The Church of the Holy Comforter, Sumter
  • The Vestry and Church Wardens of St. Jude’s Church of Walterboro
  • Saint Luke’s Church, Hilton Head
  • The Vestries and Church Wardens of the Parish of St. Andrew (Old St. Andrew’s, Charleston)
  • The Church of the holy Cross, Spartanburg
  • Trinity Church of Myrtle Beach

We may see more church schism opinions in South Carolina and elsewhere. Stay in touch with your friendly title insurance company underwriter!

*The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No. 28095 (Re-filed August 17, 2022)

**The Episcopal church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion NO. 28095 (April 20, 2022).

Easements don’t typically lead to criminal contempt charges

Standard

These horrible commercial neighbors have fought (and litigated) for years!

Our Advance Sheet from August 10 contained two Court of Appeals easement cases involving adjoining commercial properties in Murrells Inlet. Last week’s blog discussed the first of the two cases, which involved an award of attorneys’ fees*. This week, we’ll take up the second case. A footnote in the first case indicates the parties were heading to trial again immediately after oral arguments. These neighbors are obviously not getting along!

The litigation involves a restaurant property owned by Gulfstream Café, Inc. and an adjoining property containing a marina, a store and a parking lot owned by Palmetto Industrial Development, LLC. Palmetto’s predecessor in title granted four non-exclusive easements in 1986 and 1990 to Gulfstream. The easements allowed for ingress and egress and vehicular parking. It was anticipated that the marina property would use the parking primarily in the daytime and the restaurant property would use the parking primarily in the evening.

The easements included general warranties, the same language that appears in our normal general warranty deeds: “(A) does hereby bind itself and its successors and assigns, to warrant and forever defend, all and singular, the said easement unto (B), its successors and assigns, against itself and its successors and assigns, and all others whomsoever lawfully claiming, or to claim the same or any part thereof.” This language is consistent with South Carolina Code §27-7-10.

This case actually involves a criminal contempt finding in the Circuit Court for parking a golf cart in front of the easement holder’s delivery gate! The golf cart was parked there on multiple occasions in a normal parking spot. But Gulfstream couldn’t orchestrate efficient deliveries while the golf cart blocked its delivery gate. The parties are obviously horrible neighbors.

The second case reveals an interesting fact. The property owner of the burdened property intended to demolish its building and rebuild a larger building on stilts and extending over the parking lot. The owner of the easement was having none of that!

In 2017, the Circuit Court found criminal contempt and ordered a fine of $3,000 or thirty days in jail. In 2018, the parties proceeded to trial, and a jury awarded Gulfstream $1,000 for interference with the easement. The Circuit Court entered a permanent injunction: “(Appellants) are enjoined from preventing (Gulfstream) from enjoying the right(s) granted to it in the recorded nonexclusive joint easement. (Appellants) are restrained and may not expand the outside boundaries of any new building beyond those previously used. The (c)ourt is specifically not talking about height, only the outside boundaries.”

The parties fought on, seeking to clarify the easement, and seeking another criminal contempt finding. The Court amended the injunction for clarification. The Appellants moved again to clarify the injunction and argued that an injunction should not have been granted because the jury awarded monetary relief. Other arguments related to the building’s construction and that the injunction enlarged the easement. The Circuit Court denied the motions and issued a finding that the Appellants “engaged in criminal contempt of court by deliberate and intentional acts by placement of a golf cart which interfered with the proper use of the non-exclusive easement in this matter and was in direct violation of the (c)ourt’s previous order.” Appellants were fined $5,000.

Skipping a little of the very long procedural history, let’s move on to the appeal. To make a very long story shorter, the Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in finding Appellants in criminal contempt. You should read these two entertaining cases. Real estate lawyers don’t often have the pleasure of being entertained by published opinions!

*The Gulfstream Café, Inc. v. Palmetto Industrial Development, LLC, South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5935 (August 20, 2022).

** The Gulfstream Café, Inc., vs Lawhon, South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5936 (August 20, 2022).

Murrells Inlet commercial neighbors embroiled in litigation

Standard

Our Advance Sheet from August 10 contained two Court of Appeals easement cases involving adjoining commercial properties in Murrells Inlet. This blog will discuss the first of the two cases*. Next week, we’ll take up the second case. A footnote in the first case indicates the parties were heading to trial again immediately after oral arguments. These neighbors are obviously not getting along!

The litigation involves a restaurant property owned by Gulfstream Café, Inc. and an adjoining property containing a marina, a store and a parking lot owned by Palmetto Industrial Development, LLC. Palmetto’s predecessor in title granted four non-exclusive easements in 1986 and 1990 to Gulfstream. The easements allowed for ingress and egress and vehicular parking. It was anticipated that the marina property would use the parking primarily in the daytime and the restaurant property would use the parking primarily in the evening.

The easements included general warranties, the same language that appears in our normal general warranty deeds: “(A) does hereby bind itself and its successors and assigns, to warrant and forever defend, all and singular, the said easement unto (B), its successors and assigns, against itself and its successors and assigns, and all others whomsoever lawfully claiming, or to claim the same or any part thereof.” This language is consistent with South Carolina Code §27-7-10.

The question in this case is whether the easement holder (the grantee) is entitled to attorneys’ fees in connection with litigation against the easement grantor’s successor in title based on the easement. In many deed warranty cases, the grantee sues the grantor when a third party asserts an interest in the real estate. In this case, the only parties are the owners of the adjoining properties.

The relationship between the parties began to sour in 2016 when Palmetto demolished and started to rebuild its building. Gulfstream brought suit for interference with its easement and received a temporary injunction. Palmetto was subsequently held in criminal contempt for willfully violating the injunction.

In 2018, Gulfstream filed a complaint against Palmetto seeking a declaratory judgment based on interference with the easement and a finding that Palmetto breached its warranty.  This case sought attorneys’ fees and costs. Later in 2018, a jury found for Gulfstream on its claim for interference in the 2016 case.

Both parties moved for summary judgment in the 2018 case. Gulfstream argued that the plain language of the warranties provided for Palmetto’s obligation to defend Gulfstream. Palmetto relied on the language of the warranty provision and a 2004 South Carolina Supreme Court case, Black v. Patel**.

In analyzing the arguments, the Court of Appeals began with the proposition that in South Carolina, the authority to award attorneys’ fees can only come from statute or contract. Next, the Court stated that a warranty of title is a contract on the part of the grantor to pay damages in the event of a failure of title. Generally, when a grantor refuses to defend the title against a third party claiming title, the grantee is allowed attorneys’ fees. The general rule for cases in this context, according to the Court, is that only ‘lawful”—that is successful—claims asserted against title justify an award of attorneys’ fees where the grantor fails to defend the title.

A footnote in the Black case set out an exception to the general rule. The grantor would also be responsible for attorneys’ fees where its wrongful act causes the grantee to be in litigation with a third party.

The question in this case became whether the warranty provision in Gulfstream’s easements provide that Gulfstream is entitled to attorneys’ fees from Palmetto. The Court held that the answer is “no” because Gulfstream’s title is not in issued. Palmetto did not dispute the Gulfstream has easements over Palmetto’s property, rather, Palmetto, at worst, has been infringing upon Gulfstream’s rights. Gulfstream’s actual title was not challenged and there is not a third party involved as contemplated in Black.

The Court did not that its decision does not prevent Gulfstream from seeking attorneys’ fees in future contempt actions as a sanction if Palmetto continues to infringe upon Gulfstream’s rights. In other words, the Court seems confident that litigation between these parties will continue.

I’m going to have to go eat seafood in Murrells Inlet to check out these properties!

*The Gulfstream Café’, Inc. v. Palmetto Industrial Development, LLC., South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5935 (August 10, 2022).

**357 S.C. 466, 594 S.E.2d 162 (2004).