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).

SC Supreme Court probate case is real estate adjacent

Standard

Interest in marital property vests when marital litigation is filed

Real estate lawyers, consider these fact patterns:

  • James Franklin owns 200 acres of property under contract with your developer client. Your client intends to use the property to develop a residential subdivision. Your title examination reveals Franklin’s wife recently filed a petition for divorce. Can your closing proceed without involving Franklin’s wife?
  • Let’s make the facts more difficult.  A divorce has been filed, but your title examination misses it.
  • Finally, let’s make the facts even more difficult. A divorce has been filed, your title examination misses it, and Mrs. Franklin dies before your closing.

Seels v. Smalls* answers these questions. And the involvement of Mrs. Franklin or her personal representative is required for your closing in each instance. In fact, the involvement of the family court and probate court may also be required.

In this South Carolina Supreme Court case, Olivia Seels Smalls and Joe Truman Smalls had been married for more than thirty years, living in Goose Creek, and accumulating significant assets. Mrs. Smalls filed marital litigation on July 2, 2014 and died unexpectantly on December 17, 2015. Mrs. Smalls’ brother, Randall Seels, was appointed personal representative. He moved to be substituted as plaintiff in the family court case. Mr. Smalls sought dismissal of the action, arguing the entire matter had abated upon the wife’s death.

It took our Supreme Court thirteen pages to ruminate over what I thought was settled law in South Carolina. The personal representative was entitled to the wife’s interest in the marital property. One paragraph from page 46 summarizes the holding:

“In summary, section 63-3-530, governing the family court’s subject matter jurisdiction, provides in subsection (A)(2) that the family court has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ to settle all legal and equitable rights regarding marital property, importantly in section 20-3-610, the General Assemble has confirmed that each spouse has a ‘vested special equity and ownership right in the marital property’ that is subject to apportionment by the family court at the time marital litigation is filed. Further, the definition of ‘marital property’ in subsection 20-3-630(A) provides ‘marital property’ is all property acquired or owned by the parties as of the date marital litigation is filed, regardless of how it is titled, so marital property essentially springs into existence as a legally defined concept at that moment in time.”

The bottom line, dirt lawyers, is that marital litigation involving your seller should stop you in your tracks. Don’t close until you carefully examine the family court implications. And, if your client’s spouse has died, you will also need to deal with probate court implications. If you have concerns, call your friendly title insurance company underwriter for assistance.

This blog often ends with these words, and today is no exception. Be careful out there!

*South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 28103 (August 3, 2022).

Check out this interesting “heirs property” article with a SC slant

Standard

I was not familiar with “The Daily Yonder” until a Google search for real estate news revealed an interesting article about heirs’ property. The tag line for The Daily Yonder is “Keep it Rural”.  The articled, with a South Carolina connection, can be read in its entirety here

Entitled “Land rich, cash poor—How black Americans lost some of the most desirable land in the U.S.”, the article was written by Sarah Melotte and was dated July 11. It caught my attention because it quoted a South Carolinian, Ercelle Chillis, who said her family’s seven-acre tract off Folly Road in Charleston means so much because it was purchased in 1926 by her father, who saved “pennies and nickels and dimes” to buy it. Chillis’ father died without a will, and his children did not probate his estate. Family members now own the land as heirs’ property.

The article focuses on the precarious nature of owning real estate as heirs’ property. The numbers of owners multiply as the years pass, making it more and more difficult to obtain clear title. Developers may target heirs, purchasing fractional interests to ultimately force a sale by all owners. These sales are often at below-market prices. In the case of natural disasters, relief from FEMA and other entities may be unavailable for properties with title issues.

Historically, many of these properties were in swampy and mosquito infested areas with low property values. The “Gullah Geechee Corridor”, a strip of land once predominantly inhabited by enslaved people, runs along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida. We all know that the values of coastal properties have sky-rocketed in recent years.

The article points to several reasons black Americans have lost properties: violence, discrimination, intimidation, and immigration to the North. But legal scholars also blame vulnerable forms of land ownership, such as heirs’ property.

The author points to organizations such as The Sustainable Forestry and African American Land Retention Network, that are attempting to fix this problem. Legal reforms are also being implemented. Notably, in 2016, South Carolina state senator and Emanuel AME shooting victim Clementa Pinckney helped pass The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act which allows an heir to purchase other heirs’ interest to avoid forced sales to developers. Other important aspects of this legislation are the requirement of an appraisal and a directive that heirs receive a fair share of the profit.

Read this article for an interesting take on a real estate issue that many South Carolina practitioners confront on a fairly regular basis.

Does real estate “wholesaling” work in our market?

Standard

Maybe, but real estate practitioners should be careful!

A recent discussion on South Carolina Bar’s real estate section listserv surrounded whether and how to close “double closings” vs. “assignments of contracts”.  This is not a novel topic in our market. In the very hot market that preceded the crash beginning in 2007, one of the biggest traps for real estate attorneys was closing flip transactions. Title insurance lawyers fielded questions involving flips on an hourly basis!

Flips have never been illegal per se. Buying low and selling high or buying low and making substantial improvements before selling high are great ways to make substantial profits in real estate.  

Back in the day, we suggested that in situations where there were two contracts, the ultimate buyer and lender had to know the property was closing twice and the first closing had to stand on its own as to funding. In other words, the money from the second closing could not be used to fund the first closing. (Think: informed consent confirmed in writing!)

Where assignments of contracts were used, we suggested that the closing statements clearly reflect the cost and payee of the assignment.

The term real estate investors are using these days to define buying low and selling high is “wholesaling”.  A quick Google search reveals many sites defining and educating (for a price, of course) the process of wholesaling. This is a paraphrase of a telling quote I found from one site:

If you’re looking for a simple way to get started in real estate without a lot of money, real estate wholesaling could be a viable option. Real estate wholesaling involves finding discounted properties and putting the properties under contract for a third-party buyer. Before closing, the wholesaler sells their interest in the property to a real estate investor or cash buyer.

One of the smart lawyers on our listserv, Ladson H. Beach, Jr., suggested that there does not appear to be a consensus among practitioners about how to close these transactions. He suggested reviewing several ethics cases* that set out fact-specific scenarios that may result in ethical issues for closing attorneys.

In addition to the ethics issues, Mr. Beach suggested there may be a licensing issue where an assignor is not a licensed broker or agent. A newsletter from South Carolina Real Estate Commission dated May 2022 which you can read in its entirety here addresses this issue. The article, entitled “License Law Spotlight: Wholesaling and License Law” begins:

“The practice of individuals or companies entering into assignable contracts to purchase a home from an owner, then marketing the contract for the purchase of the home to the public has become a hot topic, nationwide in the real estate industry in recent years. This is usually referred to as ‘wholesaling’. The question is often, “is wholesaling legal?’ The answer depends upon the specific laws of the state in which the marketing is occurring. In South Carolina, the practice may require licensure and compliance with South Carolina’s real estate licensing law.”

The article suggests that the Real Estate Commission has interpreted that the advertising of real property belonging to another with the expectation of compensation falls under the statutory definition of “broker” in S.C. Code §40-57-30(3) and requires licensure. Further, the newsletter suggests S.C. Code §40-57-240(1) sets up an exception; licensing is not required if an unlicensed owner is selling that owner’s property. The Commission has interpreted, according to this article, that having an equitable interest is not equivalent to a legal interest for the purpose of licensing. In other words, a person having an equitable interest acquired by a contract is not the property’s owner and has no legal interest in the property for the purposes of this licensing exemption.

So real estate practitioners have several concerns about closing transactions of this type. Be very careful out there and consult your friendly title insurance underwriter and perhaps your friendly ethics lawyer if you have concerns as these situations arise in your practice.

*In re Barbare (2004), In re Fayssoux (2009), In re Brown (2004) and In re Newton (2007)

Charlotte TV station reports on Fort Mill HOA “service fee”

Standard

Charlotte television station WSOCTV (Channel 9) published a story on May 23 delving into an HOA fee from Baxter Village in Fort Mill. The story, entitled “South Carolina HOAs can charge substantial fee to leave neighborhood”, focuses on a residential seller who was shocked to find a more than $1,700 charge from her owners’ association on her closing statement.

The line item read “HOA Service Fee to Baxter”, and the fee was almost double the annual regular assessment of $950. According to the story, the covenants provide that the sale of a home will result in a fee which shall not exceed the greater of $500 or .25% of the gross sales price. The reporter interviewed a spokesman for the subdivision’s management company who said the fee has been in place since 1998. The sales price for the home highlighted in the story was $685,000.

The reporter interviewed a lawyer familiar with homeowners’ association issues in North Carolina as well as South Carolina. He said that North Carolina’s legislature had passed a Planned Community Act in 2010 that banned exit fees except in a few specific cases. South Carolina, of course, does not have similar legislation.

As with every residential purchase, the buyer should be advised by the attorney of the existence of covenants and should be encouraged to read them in their entirety to avoid surprises.

What do you think, dirt lawyers? Should we pass similar legislation in South Carolina?

South Carolina Supreme Court issues final decision on Episcopal church real estate

Standard

“This case is over” according to the court

Church schisms are tough in many ways, and the real estate issues are no exception. This week, the South Carolina Supreme Court filed an opinion* that it says finally resolves the real estate issues. In other words, the Court has decided who owns the real estate of the churches in dispute.

The 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 twelve years that have followed the dissociation. I am glad that I don’t have to figure out the doctrinal issues. The real estate issues are thorny enough.

My best advice to practicing real estate lawyers: when you are asked to close any transaction involving Episcopal church property, call your intelligent and friendly title insurance underwriter. 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 Court based its decision on which of 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 regard to the Dennis Cannon were examined.

Without belaboring the analysis, the following parishes will maintain their properties:

  • 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., Bluffton
  • The Church of the Epiphany, Eutawville
  • 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 properties of the following parishes are held in trust for the National Church:

  • The Church of the Good Shepherd, Charleston
  • The Church of the Holy Comforter, Sumter
  • St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church, Hartsville
  • The Vestry and Church Wardens of the Episcopal Church of the Parish of St John’s, John’s Island
  • The Vestry and Church Wardens of St. Jude’s Church of Walterboro
  • Saint Luke’s Church, Hilton Head
  • St. David’s Church, Cheraw
  • The Vestry and Church Wardens of the Parish of St. Matthew (St. Matthews, Fort Motte)
  • The Vestries and Church Wardens of the Parish of St. Andrew (Old St. Andrew’s, Charleston)
  • The Church of the Holy Cross, Stateburg
  • Trinity Church of Myrtle Beach
  • 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

I feel for all the parties involved. I am a United Methodist, and our international church authorities have been examining similar issues in recent years. We may see more church schism opinions in South Carolina and elsewhere. Stay in touch with your friendly title insurance company underwriter!

*The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 28095 (April 20, 2022).