This blog recently discussed the Missouri class action by residential real estate sellers against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a real estate agent trade association, and several real estate agent entities, which resulted in a judgment of $1.8 billion. The plaintiffs argued that commissions are rarely negotiable and that the seller is required to pay commissions for both sides of transactions
A South Carolina lawyer posted on a listserv I read on the subject that litigation like this wouldn’t happen in South Carolina because standard residential contracts leave a blank for the percentage of the buyer’s agent’s commission. This poster was, sadly, wrong.
Housingwire reported on November 10 that Shauntell Burton has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina alleging that the NAR and Keller Williams colluded to artificially inflate agent commission rates. You can read the story here.
The plaintiff is seeking class action status for all home sellers in South Carolina who have sold a home on the MLS with a Keller Williams agent since November of 2019. The 107-page complaint states that NAR’s “clear cooperation” policy leads to the commission problem because that policy requires agents to provide a blanket offer of compensation to the buyer’s agent to list a property on the MLS.
Apparently, similar suits are being brought in multiple states.
Dirt lawyers, what do you think about this? Is Keller Williams the only broker involved in the practice, or will other brokers be named in the future? Is it your experience that commissions paid by sellers to buyers’ agents are negotiated, as the poster mentioned above suggested? I’d love to hear your thoughts and learn from your experience.
Halloween brought a scary judgment in a Missouri class action by residential real estate sellers against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a real estate agent trade association, and several real estate agent entities. The judgment of $1.8 billion will surely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Appeals may take several years to be completed.
The sellers argued that commissions are rarely negotiable, and that the seller is required to pay commissions for both sides of transactions. I heard a seller interviewed by Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News on November 1. He said that he must pay commission to a real estate agent he never met, will never meet and who did no work for him.
The plaintiffs also argued that this commission structure keeps home prices artificially high.
At least two real estate agent entities settled for large sums prior to the judgment. And similar lawsuits are pending in other jurisdictions.
Dirt lawyers, how do you project this suit may ultimately affect our industry? I wonder if any type of injunction will be put into place pending appeal. I wonder whether the Department of Justice will see the necessity to become involved. I wonder whether commissions will ultimately become negotiable and whether buyers will be required to pay their agents up front or at closing. If that happens, I can imagine extensive negotiations with sellers to pay more of their buyer’s closing costs than customary. I even wonder whether buyer agents may become obsolete.
This blog has previously discussed MV Realty PBC, LLC. South Carolina title examiners report they are discovering “Homeowner Benefit Agreements”, or “Exclusive Listing Agreements” filed in the public records as mortgages or memoranda of agreement. The duration of the agreements purports to be forty years, and a quick search revealed hundreds of these unusual documents filed in several South Carolina counties. The documents indicate that they create liens against the real estate in question.
The company behind these documents is MV Realty PBC, LLC which appears to be doing business in the Palmetto State as MV Realty of South Carolina, LLC. The company’s website indicates the company will pay a homeowner between $300 and $5,000 in connection with its Homeowner Benefit Program. In return for the payment, the homeowner agrees to use the company’s services as listing agent if the decision is made to sell the property during the term of the agreement. The agreements typically provide that the homeowner may elect to pay an early termination fee to avoid listing the property in question with MV Realty.
In response to numerous underwriting questions on the topic, Chicago Title sent an underwriting memorandum last year to its agents entitled “Exclusive Listing Agreements”. Chicago Title’s position on the topic was set out in its memorandum as follows: “Pending further guidance, Chicago Title requires that you treat recordings of this kind like any other lien or mortgage. You should obtain a release or satisfaction of the recording as part of the closing or take an exception to the recorded document in your commitments and final policies.”
Several states have sued this company or passed legislation making the contracts unenforceable. South Carolina is not one of those states. On September 6, United States Senators Casey, Brown and Wyden (Chairmen of Special Committee on Aging, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Committee on Finance, respectively) wrote a comprehensive letter setting out the legal concerns and seeking information. You can read the letter in its entirety here.
Now, MV Realty of South Carolina has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reporting assets of $1 – $10 million and debts of $1-$50 million.
Dirt lawyers, pay attention to this situation. We will certainly see updates. If you see these contracts in your chains of title in the meantime, contact your underwriting counsel for guidance.
This blog has discussed the new Corporate Transparency Act twice recently. If you missed the discussion of the Small Entity Compliance Guide FinCEN issued in September, here is the link.
I wanted to share an additional piece of information. On September 30, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend the deadline for filing beneficial ownership information reports. You can read the notice here.
This notice proposes to change the reporting deadline for new entities formed beginning in 2024 from 30 to 90 days. The press release indicates this extension is intended to reporting companies created or registered in 2024 additional time to understand their regulatory obligations under the new reporting rule. I think this change will be helpful, if implemented.
Please refer to the excellent September 2023 article in SC Lawyer entitled, “The Basic Ins and Outs of the Corporate Transparency Act” by Matthew B. Edwards and D. Parker Baker III.
This article provides an analysis of the basics of the Act, which is intended to help prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, tax fraud and other illicit activities. Many entities will be required to report information concerning beneficial owners to the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), identifying their beneficial owners and providing certain information about them.
The act may apply to virtually every commercial real estate transaction because of the use of multi-tier entity structures to achieve business objectives. Lawyers will need to review clients’ organizational structure charts to determine entity by entity whether an exemption is applicable. If not, organizational documents, stockholder agreements, operating agreements will have to be reviewed to determine beneficial ownership.
Reporting information will include the name, address, state of jurisdiction and taxpayer identification number of every beneficial owner. Other information may be required, such as passports and driver’s licenses. Penalties for failure to comply will include civil penalties of no more than $500 per day, fines of no more than $10,000 and imprisonment for no more than two years. A safe harbor is included for voluntarily and promptly correcting an inaccurate report within 90 days. FinCEN will issue rules prior the effective date.
Don’t panic. We have time. The effective date is January 1, 2024. For companies formed prior to the effective date, the initial report is due January 1, 2025. For companies formed on or after the effective date, the first report is due 30 days following formation. This new rule, if implemented, will change that time-frame to 90 days.
I think everyone’s initial advice as to new entities will be to refrain from forming those entities until the effects of the Act are analyzed. Existing entities will need to be analyzed pursuant to FinCEN’s rules.
Everyone will get through this together, and it’s likely that experts will emerge to help. This blog will keep you posted on new developments.
The new Corporate Transparency Act will apply to you and your clients!
This blog recently discussed the new Corporate Transparency Act. I’m repeating that blog in order to provide you with extra piece of information that should be helpful as you work to get ready for this new obligation of many clients. FinCen has recently published a compliance guide that you can read here.
Please refer to the excellent September 2023 article in SC Lawyer entitled, “The Basic Ins and Outs of the Corporate Transparency Act” by Matthew B. Edwards and D. Parker Baker III.
This article provides an analysis of the basics of the Act, which is intended to help prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, tax fraud and other illicit activities. Many entities will be required to report information concerning beneficial owners to the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), identifying their beneficial owners and providing certain information about them.
The act may apply to virtually every commercial real estate transaction because of the use of multi-tier entity structures to achieve business objectives. Lawyers will need to review clients’ organizational structure charts to determine entity by entity whether an exemption is applicable. If not, organizational documents, stockholder agreements, operating agreements will have to be reviewed to determine beneficial ownership.
Reporting information will include the name, address, state of jurisdiction and taxpayer identification number of every beneficial owner. Other information may be required, such as passports and driver’s licenses. Penalties for failure to comply will include civil penalties of no more than $500 per day, fines of no more than $10,000 and imprisonment for no more than two years. A safe harbor is included for voluntarily and promptly correcting an inaccurate report within 90 days. FinCEN will issue rules prior the effective date.
Don’t panic. We have time. The effective date is January 1, 2024. For companies formed prior to the effective date, the initial report is due January 1, 2025. For companies formed on or after the effective date, the first report is due thirty days following formation.
I think everyone’s initial advice as to new entities will be to refrain from forming those entities until the effects of the Act are analyzed. Existing entities will need to be analyzed pursuant to FinCEN’s rules during 2024.
Everyone will get through this together, and it’s likely that experts will emerge to help.
CFPB imposes $1.75 million fine for giving “things of value” in return for referrals
This blog often recommends the DIRT Listserv and today is no exception. Professor Dale Whitman reported on August 22 that the CFPB issued an order against Freedom Mortgage Corporation, a residential mortgage loan originator and servicer headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, for providing things of value—including subscription services, events, and monthly marketing services agreement payments—in exchange for referrals of mortgage loans in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and its implementing Regulation X. The order requires Freedom to stop its unlawful activities and pay a $1.75 million civil money penalty.
Professor Whitman noted that since RESPA Section 8 has been around for 50 years, one might think that such practices are a thing of the past.
These specific violations were noted:
Freedom entered into agreements with local real estate agents for the agents to provide marketing services for Freedom’s mortgage activities. CFPB said the payments were really referral fees for the agents to refer mortgage loan customers to Freedom. Apparently, no “marketing services” were provided.
Freedom gave the agents free access to valuable industry subscription services, which provided information concerning property reports, comparable sales, and foreclosure data. These subscriptions, which were worth thousands of dollars per month, were provided in return for the agents referring mortgage loan customers to Freedom.
Freedom provided entertainment, food, and drinks at parties and other events to the agents that were referring loan customers to it. They also provided free tickets to sporting and charity events. They didn’t make similar distributions to agents who were not referring customers.
Professor Whitman questions whether a lender really cannot throw a pregame party or provide a skybox at a game for real estate agents. He suggests that there must be a de minimus exception. But the order doesn’t give much guidance on the boundaries of Section 8.
I agree with the Professor. If you represent clients that provide settlement services and rely on referrals, you should advise them to be very cautious about providing free services and entertainment persons who make the referrals.
The new Corporate Transparency Act will apply to you and your clients!
Please refer to the excellent September 2023 article in SC Lawyer entitled, “The Basic Ins and Outs of the Corporate Transparency Act” by Matthew B. Edwards and D. Parker Baker III.
This article provides an analysis of the basics of the Act, which is intended to help prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, tax fraud and other illicit activities. Many entities will be required to report information concerning beneficial owners to the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), identifying their beneficial owners and providing certain information about them.
The act may apply to virtually every commercial real estate transaction because of the use of multi-tier entity structures to achieve business objectives. Lawyers will need to review clients’ organizational structure charts to determine entity by entity whether an exemption is applicable. If not, organizational documents, stockholder agreements, operating agreements will have to be reviewed to determine beneficial ownership.
Reporting information will include the name, address, state of jurisdiction and taxpayer identification number of every beneficial owner. Other information may be required, such as passports and driver’s licenses. Penalties for failure to comply will include civil penalties of no more than $500 per day, fines of no more than $10,000 and imprisonment for no more than two years. A safe harbor is included for voluntarily and promptly correcting an inaccurate report within 90 days. FinCEN will issue rules prior the effective date.
Don’t panic. We have time. The effective date is January 1, 2024. For companies formed prior to the effective date, the initial report is due January 1, 2025. For companies formed on or after the effective date, the first report is due thirty days following formation.
I think everyone’s initial advice as to new entities will be to refrain from forming those entities until the effects of the Act are analyzed. Existing entities will need to be analyzed pursuant to FinCEN’s rules during 2024.
Everyone will get through this together, and it’s likely that experts will emerge to help.
Last week, this blog discussed a real estate dispute between a developer and a 93-year-old great-great-grandmother in Hilton Head who said her husband’s family has owned the property since the Civil War. This week, we turn to a similar story in St. Helena Island.
NPR reported on August 3 that residents of St. Helena Island have banded together to protect the culture of the Gullah Geechee people from a golf course development. You can read NPR’s story here.
The story reports that St. Helena Island has a decade’s old zoning ordinance that bans golf courses, resorts and gated communities, which the Gullah Geechee people say threaten their existence. Direct descendants of slaves have farmed and fished St. Helena Island for nearly 200 years, using their own language, culture and traditions.
NPR reports that developer Elvio Tropeano purchased 500 acres and wants to build a golf course despite the zoning ordinance. He contends the golf course would benefit the community by allowing public access and attracting visitors who would become educated about the Gullah Geechee people and spend funds that would support their culture. If he is unable to build the golf course, he threatens to build more than 160 luxury homes. According to the NPR story, some locals believe the subdivision would be worse than the golf course. They prefer to have the land sustained the way it is, unspoiled and resilient.
These stories are certainly not the first South Carolina tales we have heard about disputes between locals and developers and pressures on “heirs property” and other undeveloped, pristine real estate. The pressures seem to be building!
News sources are reporting that a dispute between a developer and a 93-year-old great-great-grandmother has halted the development of a 29-acre, 247-unit subdivision called Bailey’s Cove Subdivision in Hilton Head. Read MSN’s articles here and here.
The Town of Hilton Head has issued a press release dated August 3 stating that it will not issue a Certificate of Compliance or building permits until the dispute between Josephine Wright and Bailey Point Investment Group has been resolved. Both parties are claiming they own property included within the proposed development.
The dispute apparently began when the developer discovered Wright’s satellite dish, shed and screened porch are located on property the developer claims. The June 22 article includes a plat dirt lawyers will find interesting. The developer filed a lawsuit demanding that Wright remove her personal property from its real estate. Wright counterclaimed, alleging the lawsuit was one step of the developer’s “constant barrage of tactics of intimidation, harassment, trespass” to force Wright to sell her home.
MSN is reporting that Wright says her husband’s family, who were escaped slaves freed by Union soldiers, has owned the disputed property since shortly after the Civil War. The stories also report that celebrities are supporting Wright in this dispute: Tyler Perry posted a message on Instagram asking how he can help; Snoop Dogg’s label, Death Row Records, donated $10,000 to Wright’s GoFundMe campaign, and NBA player Kyrie Irving donated $40,000.
Of course, I’d like to know what the title work shows and whether title insurance is involved. We’ll have to pay attention to see how this dispute is resolved.
The preacher started his sermon on Sunday by saying: “I love a good story.” I love a good story, too, and even though this one is about a South Carolina tax sale, not a twin’s stolen blessing from Genesis, it makes for a pretty good tale.
I’ve often said that our courts of appeal will overturn a tax sale on the flimsiest of technicalities. The technicalities in this case are not flimsy, and a claim of slander of title gives us a different slant on the typical tax sale case.
The opinion in Gleason v. Orangeburg County* starts, “This story began with a flawed tax sale, but there were several mistakes for years after.” It’s not a John Grisham-worthy beginning, but it’s not bad for a South Carolina Court of Appeals case.
Bank of America began foreclosure proceedings in 1998 on property owned by Debra Foxworth. When the foreclosure was finalized, the bank sold the property to Wilton Gleaton. The opinion refers to Wilton Gleaton as “Wilton” because his wife will become a later player in the story. When Wilton bought the property, the 1998 taxes had not been paid.
In a classic tale of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, Orangeburg County began proceedings in March of 1999 to collect the delinquent taxes. The County sent Foxworth notices for failing to pay taxes in March and May, shortly before the foreclosure sale to the bank, but long after the bank began foreclosure proceedings. The County sold the property at a delinquent tax sale to James Fields in February 2000.
The County sent three required “Dear Property Owner” letters to give notice of the redemption period. Two of the letters were addressed to Foxworth and the third was addressed to Wilton but mailed to Foxworth’s address.
In an interesting twist, Wilton’s wife, Sara, visited Orangeburg County in January 2001—before the redemption period expired—and went there precisely because she had not received a tax notice in the mail. She paid the 2000 property taxes. That tax bill listed a Charleston address at which neither Sara nor Wilton had ever lived. Sara gave the County her correct address and asked if any other taxes were owed. The County initially told her that no other taxes were due but later informed her the 1999 taxes had not been paid. She paid those taxes the next month, February 2001. In an “asleep at the wheel” move, the County employee did not inform her of the 2000 tax sale to Fields or of the right to redeem the property.
The redemption period expired in February 2001, not long after Sara paid the 2000 property taxes, but before she paid the 1999 taxes. In May 2001, The County issued a tax deed to Fields. The tax deed listed Foxworth as the defaulting taxpayer and “record owner against whom warrant was issued.” The tax deed made no reference to the Gleatons.
The Gleatons paid subsequent taxes as they came due.
In 2006, the County discovered Wilton—the record owner at the time of the 2000 tax sale—had not been noticed. In another interesting twist, the tax collector had Fields convey the property back to Foxworth via quitclaim deed in an effort to “reverse” the tax sale. The Gleatons were not notified about any of this.
In 2007, the Gleatons listed the property for sale. (Dirt lawyers, this is where the facts get “real” for us.) In October 2009, Donnie and Connie Hall contracted to buy the property for $33,000. It’s shocking, I know, but the Halls discovered a title problem! The County’s attorney offered to bring a declaratory judgment on the Hall’s behalf seeking rulings that the tax sale and quitclaim deed were void.
Wilton filed this suit against the County after the Halls backed out of the sale. In December 2014, the master issued an order finding the tax sale was flawed and invalid and the tax deed to Fields was improper. But the master left open the issues of liability and damages and ordered the Gleatons to attempt to sell the property within four months. Wilton died shortly after this order and Sara was substituted as a party. The property did not sell, and the master issued a final order in 2019. He found that the County’s actions were not malicious and “made no publication” that was intended to harm the Gleatons and made no statement that was knowingly false or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
The master found that the only statement slandering Wilton’s title was the quitclaim deed from Fields to Foxworth, and that this deed was done for the purpose of returning the property to the defaulting taxpayer, not for the purpose of damaging Wilton’s title. The master also found that a proper title search would have revealed the 1998 taxes were due and owing at the time of the Gleatons’ purchase.
On appeal, Sara argued:
The tax deed and subsequent deed to Foxworth disparaged the title.
The County knew Wilton owned the property because the deed and mortgage were recorded before the tax deed.
The master erred in failing to find malice because malice, in a slander of title action, includes publications made without legal justification.
The Halls plainly refused to purchase the property because of the cloud on the title.
Citing an earlier case, the Cout of Appeals set out the elements of slander of title as:
The publication
with malice
of a false statement
that is derogatory to plaintiff’s title and
causes special damages
as a result of diminished value of the property in the eyes of third parties.
The Court held the master’s findings that the County’s actions did not result in any publication and did not contain any statement that was knowingly false or made in reckless disregard of the truth were not supported by the evidence. The Court also disagreed with the master’s finding that malice requires an intent to injure. The County’s numerous missteps were at least reckless, according to the Court, stating that the situation should have been resolved in a logical and reasonable manner when the mistakes were discovered.
The case was remanded for the master to consider each element in a slander of title action and the proper standard for malice.
Please note that more than 20 years have passed since this tale of woe began. The County should have discovered and fixed its mistakes when Sara visited in 2001 with the express purpose of paying taxes. And there is no excuse for the County’s continued failure to correct its errors in 2006 when the tax collector discovered Wilton’s ownership of the property.
*South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 6003 (July 26, 2023)
Let's Talk Dirt 