When I was a title insurance underwriter, I helped many South Carolina lawyers close and insure their clients’ conservation easements, so I know many of these easements are recorded in the public records in South Carolina. I wanted to make sure all dirt lawyers who represent clients with conservation easements are aware of a development in this area of the law.
The Secure 2.0 Act of 2022 authorized the IRS to issue “safe harbor” language for conservation easements to cover situations where the easement is later extinguished because of unexpected circumstances or where a boundary line adjustment is needed. Using the correct “safe harbor” language will avoid the loss of the grantor’s charitable deduction.
Here is the important news: if your client has previously granted a conservation easement, the document can now be amended to add the “safe harbor” language. But the amendment must be recorded by July 24, 2023.
Or do you think this JTROS decision is accurate and fair?
This Alabama case* was discussed extensively on the DIRT listserv. I’d love to know how South Carolina lawyers react to the decision.
Here’s the recital of the facts from DIRT:
“Michael Upchurch, his brother Davis Upchurch, and his nephew Jason Upchurch owned several pieces of real property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. They signed a contract to sell the properties to third parties. However, before closing, Michael died. In this declaratory judgment action, Michael’s widow Carol Upchurch, individual and as executor of Michael’s estate, asserted, among other things, a claim to one-third of the proceeds from that sale. David and Jason filed a motion for a summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. The Alabama Supreme Court held that under the circumstances, Michael, David, and Jason’s decision to enter into a contract to sell the properties severed their joint tenancy and that, as a result Michael’s estate was entitled to one-third of the proceeds from the sale of the properties. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment in favor of the estate.”
What do you think about this opinion? Would a South Carolina court come to the same result?
I don’t believe our statute answers the question. For your consideration, here are relevant portions of our statute on the subject:
§ 27-7-40. Creation of joint tenancy; filing; severance
(a)(ii) In the event of the death of a joint tenant survived by more than one joint tenant in the real estate, the entire interest of the deceased joint tenant vests equally in the surviving joint tenants who continues to own the entire interest owned by them as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
(iv) If all the joint tenants who own real estate held in joint tenancy join in an encumbrance, the interest in the real estate is effectively encumbered to a third party or parties.
(vi) If real estate is owned by more than two joint tenants, a conveyance by one joint tenant to all the other joint tenants therein conveys his interest therein equally to the other joint tenants who continue to own the real estate as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
(ix) If real estate is owned by two or more joint tenants, a conveyance by all the joint tenants to themselves as tenants in common severs the joint tenancy and conveys the fee in the real estate to these individuals as tenants in common.
(c) Except as expressly provided herein, any joint tenancy severed pursuant to the terms of this section is and becomes a tenancy in common without rights of survivorship.
The answer would seem clearer to me if only one joint tenant had entered into a contract. Severance of the joint tenancy would appear to be the correct answer. But under the facts recited here, I have my doubts.
The intention of the parties is always relevant. We don’t have any clear statement to that effect here. If all three had survived the sale, each joint tenant would have been entitled to his portion of the proceeds. But no document among the owners addressed a death prior to the sale. Originally setting up their interests as JTROS suggests their intent that a death of one would result in ownership by the other two. Did signing the contract evidence their intent to no longer own the properties as joint tenants?
One comment from DIRT suggested the court might have decided that the contract rights of the deceased owner survived his death and passed to his estate. But that’s not what the court held. It held that the JTROS was severed by the contract.
Dirt lawyers, what do you think?
*Upchurch v. Upchurch, Supreme Court of Alabama Case SC-2022-0478 (April 7, 2023)
Dirt lawyers hear stories of dysfunctional homeowners’ associations routinely. I have one for you!
My husband and I built a second home at the beach in a relatively modest subdivision in 2011. Many of the houses are owner occupied, but many are on rental plans. My twenty-something daughter met a neighbor who asked her two questions, (1) “Is this your family’s first vacation home?” and (2) Your parents aren’t going to rent this house, are they?” It wasn’t a good start to our relationship.
We had several issues with ARB approvals during the building process, which were handled by our builder. At one point, he threw his hands in the air in frustration and said, “These people need to understand this isn’t DeBordieu.” In other words, the ARB seemed to believe the subdivision is much more affluent than it is.
When we attended our first (and only as it turns out) annual meeting of the owners, the president of the board promptly threw one of our neighbors out of the meeting for asking a question! It was during the first five minutes of the meeting. We were shocked and vowed to steer clear of those meetings.
During our first winter, we received a very nasty letter telling us we had a dead tree that must be removed immediately. We were in Columbia, didn’t know about the dead tree, and even when we investigated, we decided the tree didn’t look any worse than the other winter trees. But we quickly took it down! We heard another neighbor received a similar letter telling him his mailbox was dirty and needed to be cleaned immediately.
We decided that we were going to be good neighbors and properly maintain our house and yard, but we would enjoy the beach and the gatherings of our growing family (including the four grandchildren we’ve been blessed with since we built the house) without getting involved with the neighbors.
Believe it or not, this story has a happy ending. Apparently, all the problems were caused by one homeowner who managed to get herself elected to the board and the ARB. She roamed the streets looking for rules violations and wrote the letters herself. About the time we figured out the problem, she and her husband, thankfully, moved. The trouble among the neighbors immediately improved. Now, we have delightful neighborhood parties and enjoy getting to know our neighbors. And it seems everyone has a story about the bad neighbor. We stand around drinking beer and telling stories.
My guess is that our earlier bad HOA is like the one described in Buckholder v. Palisades Park Owners Ass’n, Inc.*, a Virginia case where the HOA imposed an assessment on all owners to fund the cost of inspecting each property for the purpose of finding violations of the HOA rules. Homeowners sued to have the assessment declared invalid.
Virginia has a statute that provides, “(e)xcept as expressly authorized by the Act, the declaration or as otherwise provided by law, no association shall…make an assessment or impose a charge against a lot owner unless the charge is a fee for services provided or related to use of the common area.”
The court invalided the assessment and remanded the case to the lower court.
I read about this interesting case on the DIRT listserv that I recommend routinely. You won’t be sorry if you sign up for the emails!
Professor Dale Whitman who moderates the listserv commented that this is the sort of thing that gives HOAs a bad name. He also commented, “While most states won’t have a statute exactly like Virginia’s, the lesson of the case remains applicable. If an HOA or condo board is going to impose an assessment to be used on anything other than the common areas (or reserves that will ultimately benefit the common areas), it needs to be certain that it has the legal power to do so, either by virtue of an applicable statute or its own declaration. This is particularly true if the assessment is almost certain to irritate and raise the hackles of some owners, as this one was.”
Several lawyers commented about the nature of folks who like to serve on HOA boards. Read the comments if you need a good laugh. The listserv is searchable.
I think I’ll share the case with my neighbors at the beach.
Pending legislation in South Carolina may affect your transactions
Remember the Chinese surveillance balloon the United States shot down off the coast of the Palmetto State in February? That incident and other rising tensions between our government and China over several issues (the war in Ukraine, recognition of Taiwan, to name only two) have resulted in politicians proposing to broaden state law bans on foreign ownership of real estate.
According to a New York Times article dated February 7, entitled “How U.S-China Tensions Could Affect Who Buys the House Next Door”, legislation in Texas was proposed after a Chinese billionaire with plans to create a wind farm bought more than 130,000 acres of land near a U.S. Air Force base.
Proposed legislation is also pending in Florida, California and now South Carolina to restrict ownership of real estate by “hostile nations” or “foreign adversaries.” Some have suggested that such bills may run afoul of due process and equal protection issues.
Chicago Title published an Underwriting Memorandum on April 5 entitled “Foreign Ownership of Property in South Carolina” to advise agents of the pending legislation in our state.
You may recall that we have an existing statute (S.C. Code §27-13-30) prohibiting any “alien” or corporation controlled by an “alien” from owning or controlling more than 500,000 acres of land in South Carolina. Recently, the South Carolina Senate passed Senate Bill 576 that amends the existing statute by expressly prohibiting any citizen of a foreign adversary or corporation controlled by a foreign adversary from acquiring any interest in South Carolina property. The proposed legislation will now be considered by the House.
The term “foreign adversary” is defined in the bill as “any foreign government or nongovernment person determined by the United States Secretary of Commerce to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States citizens.”
And there are other bills pending along the same lines.
Senate Bill 392 would amend our existing statute to reduce the amount of property allowed to be owned by an “alien” to 1,000 acres. House Bill 3566 would add a statute to reduce to 1,000 acres the amount of land that can be owned or controlled by China, the Chinese Communist Party, or an entity whose principal place of business is located within China. House Bill 3118 would prohibit any company owned or controlled by China or the Chinese Communist Party or that has a principal place of business in China from owning, leasing, possessing, or exercising any control over real estate located within 50 miles of a state or federal military base for the purpose of installing or erecting any type of telecommunications or broadcasting tower.
All dirt lawyers will know immediately that all versions of the proposed legislation will create uncertainty in our market. I have only two pieces of advice at this point. First, let’s all monitor the proposed legislation. And, second, let’s pay attention to guidance provided by our excellent title insurance underwriters.
My friend and self-professed “fellow title nerd”, Lacey Higginbotham, who practices in Myrtle Beach, sent to me a “Deed of Child” she found in the Horry County records. The document is dated May 10, 1930, recorded June 3. 1930, and purports to convey a child from a father to another family .
Because the document is difficult to read, I’ll squint for you and set it out here for your reading pleasure:
I can imagine Professor Spitz presenting this document to us as an exam in our first- year property law class. He might ask for us to spot all the issues concerning the enforceability of this document. Thanks, Lacey, for this diversion!
A recent blog about a South Carolina Supreme Court amendment to a comment following our UPL rule contained the following paragraph:
“Remember that our Supreme Court adamantly told us in In re Lester* that a lawyer must be physically present for a closing. Prior to Lester, a closing attorney might be on vacation and available by telephone to answer closing questions. Lester called a halt to that practice.”
A reader responded, “Claire, can you clarify the effects of In Re Lester on ‘mail away’ closings?” This is such a great question, and I responded that I would answer with a new blog. This is that blog!
In the South Carolina Bar’s publication, Handbook for South Carolina Dirt Lawyers, I included the following discussion of mail-away closings.
“Attorneys in resort areas have done “mail away” closings routinely for years. Titles are examined, closing packages are prepared and mailed to a remote location for signatures. Recent South Carolina Supreme Court disciplinary cases requiring attorneys to be present at closings have caused some attorneys to question whether mail away closings can be done ethically by South Carolina attorneys.
The Supreme Court has not addressed this issue specifically, so no one knows the answer to this question. However, in a seminar in 2005, a lawyer from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was asked whether an attorney can ethically handle a closing by mail.
He responded that it was his opinion that the attorney should:
• Schedule a closing date, time and place;
• Advise the clients that they should attend the closing;
• Advise the clients that the attorney will be able to provide better representation if the clients attend the closing; and
• Require the clients to sign a document indicating they received the foregoing advice but chose not to attend the closing.
Another speaker at the seminar suggested that he would only handle mail away closings if the clients agreed to meet with a lawyer in the clients’ location to execute the documents.
On September 16, 2005, we received a more formal opinion in the form of Ethics Advisory Opinion 05-16. This opinion states that an attorney may ethically conduct a real estate closing by mail as long as it is done in a way that: (1) ensures that the attorney is providing competent representation to the client; (2) all aspects of the closing remain under the supervision of an attorney; and (3) the attorney complies with the duty to communicate with the client, so as to maintain the attorney-client relationship and be in a position to explain and answer any questions about the documents sent to the client for signature. To meet this test, according to the opinion, clients must have reasonable means to be in contact with the attorney, by telephone, facsimile, or electronic transmission.
The Opinion states that there is no legal requirement that a client attend the closing, but it must be the client’s decision not to attend the closing. The Opinion acknowledges today’s climate by this statement: “Given today’s technological advances in communications and funds transfer, to require a client living in one part of the country to attend a closing against the client’s own wishes is both unnecessary and punitive.” The Opinion makes the point that the duties of the attorney do not change when the closing is accomplished by mail in this statement: “The prudent attorney will conduct closings by mail in such a fashion that the client is fully informed and properly advised, that the client has a reasonable means to consult with the attorney, and that all personnel assisting the attorney are properly supervised.”
South Carolina closing attorneys are relieved to have this authority and appreciative of the efforts of the South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee.”
Of course, technology has drastically changed since these words were written, but the legal issues have not. A dirt lawyer can certainly handle mail away closings ethically. But dirt lawyers must still practice law in connection with those closings.
Please feel free to make comments and ask questions about these blogs!
Dirt lawyers: call your friendly, intelligent title insurance underwriter!
Unfortunately, failed banks are back in the news and again affecting the stock market and our 401(k) accounts. It is doubtful that the California and New York banks that have failed have significant assets or loans in South Carolina, but Chicago Title’s underwriters have heard of at least one recent local transaction that involved one of the failed banks.
How should real estate lawyers protect their clients and themselves?
Next, remember that assets are not automatically transferred by state law to an acquiring bank when the FDIC is appointed receiver and simultaneously announces the acquisition of the failed bank’s assets. Also, remember that the acquiring bank is not necessarily a “successor” to the failed bank.
Such an acquisition does generally mean that we can treat the acquiring bank as the owner of certain loans of the failed bank. We can generally rely on payoff statements, releases, satisfactions, and foreclosure actions by the acquiring bank if the acquiring bank asserts that it is the assignee by purchase. Documents should recite that the acquiring bank is the assignee of the loan. And we should be able to rely on that recitation.
In foreclosure situations, the acquiring bank may be required to prove its ownership of the debt and its record interest in the mortgage.
Payoff statements from the failed bank may be relied upon and the payoff statement may be made at the failed bank’s direction. But any release or satisfaction executed in response to that payoff must come from the receiver or its attorney in fact. Closing attorneys should confirm that the appropriate signature will be obtained before making the payoff.
The FDIC should sign recordable affidavits, as receiver, to the effect that it sold the particular loan asset to the acquiring bank to support assignments and modifications.
If your client purchases an REO asset that was owned by a failed bank, the proper grantor in the deed will be the FDIC, as receiver for the named failed bank. The FDIC will likely grant powers of attorney to individuals at the failed bank, at the acquiring bank, or internally, to facilitate signing these deeds. The power of attorney should comply with South Carolina law.
FDIC Statement of Policy on Foreclosure Consent and Redemption Rights provides that where the FDIC holds a junior mortgage, it “hereby grants its consent” to any foreclosure by a holder of a bona fide senior mortgage. Your title insurance company may require notice to the FDIC and the acquiring bank.
My best advice in all these cases is to call the person who either knows the answer to your many questions or will find out the answers to each of these questions for you: your favorite friendly and intelligent title insurance company underwriter!
The intent is to allow lawyers from other jurisdictions to work remotely here
I begin this blog by admitting that I wouldn’t have thought this Supreme Court Order was a big deal if the brilliant Teri Callen (Chicago Title lawyer and USC Law School Adjunct Professor) had not pointed out its significance.
On March 15, The South Carolina Supreme Court amended Comment 4 to Rule 5.5, South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, by adding the following sentence at the end of the comment:
“A lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction does not establish an office or other systematic presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law by engaging in remote work in this jurisdiction, provided the lawyer’s legal services are limited to services the lawyer is authorized to perform by a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted, and the lawyer does not state, imply, or hold out to the public that the lawyer is a South Carolina lawyer or is admitted to practice law in South Carolina.”
This type of remote work in South Carolina by out-of-state lawyers was formerly only allowed in the event of a state of emergency, as in a global pandemic. Now, a lawyer admitted in New York can live, permanently or temporarily, in Hilton Head and practice law from her computer and telephone. The South Carolina Bar had requested an amendment to this comment, and the Court adopted a modified version of the Bar’s proposal.
Teri has previously taught us that a South Carolina lawyer working remotely in another state might be participating in the unauthorized practice of law. A Charleston lawyer who decides to live, permanently or temporarily, in the mountains, should check the court rules of that state to determine whether remote work is considered UPL in that state.
Remember that our Supreme Court adamantly told us in In re Lester* that a lawyer must be physically present for a closing. Prior to Lester, a closing attorney might be on vacation and available by telephone to answer closing questions. Lester called a halt to that practice.
The Court didn’t weigh in on whether a South Carolina lawyer is allowed under our rules to work remotely in another state where he is not licensed without running afoul of our rules. Our Court probably wouldn’t touch that issue because of the implications and unintended consequences that might occur. For example, if it is permissible for a South Carolina lawyer to work remotely in another state, is it also permissible to perform a South Carolina closing there?
There are land mines everywhere, lawyers. I feel as if I end 9 out of 10 blogs with the thought that everyone needs to be careful out there. This blog falls in the “be careful” category.
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)
Real estate law never bores me, but our cases may seem particularly mundane considering the Murdaugh prosecution that has gripped our state for more than a month. You may want to put this blog aside until the jury returns its verdict. I’ve seen so many photos on social media of groups of lawyers watching the case together that I am confident real estate is not top of mind!
Huskins v. Mungo Homes, LLC* is a South Carolina Court of Appeals case which was originally issued June 1, 2022, then withdrawn, substituted and refiled February 15, 2023.
The Huskins signed a Purchase Agreement with Mungo in June 2015 for a home in Westcott Ridge subdivision in Irmo. The document consisted of three pages. The first page contained a statutory notice of arbitration, the second page included a paragraph entitled “LIMITED WARRANTY”, and the third page included a paragraph entitled “ARBITRATION AND CLAIMS.”
In 2017, the Huskins filed an action against Mungo alleging the Purchase Agreement violated South Carolina law by disclaiming implied warranties without providing for a price reduction or other benefit to the purchaser for relinquishing those rights. The causes of action included: (1) breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, and (4) declaratory relief regarding the validity of the waiver and release of warranty rights and the validity of Mungo’s purported transfer of all remaining warranty obligations to a third party.
Mungo filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. The Huskins’ responsive memorandum argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and unenforceable. They asserted that the limitation of warranties provision should be considered as a part of the agreement to arbitrate. The Circuit Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss and compelling arbitration. In ruling the arbitration clause was not one-sided and unconscionable, the Circuit Court found that (1) the limited warranty provision must be read in isolation from the arbitration clause; and (2) terms in the arbitration clause pertaining to a 90-day time limit were not one-sided and oppressive because they did not waive any rights or remedies otherwise available by law.
The Court of Appeals initially held that the Circuit Court’s order was immediately appealable, stating that our state procedural rules, rather than the Federal Arbitration Act, govern appealability of arbitration orders. While arbitration orders are not typically immediately appealable under South Carolina law, this order had granted Mungo’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which is an appealable order.
The Court next held that the arbitration clause must be considered separately from the limited warranty provision, citing cases to the effect that arbitration provisions are separable from the contracts in which they are imbedded. A prior D.R. Horton South Carolina Supreme Court case** considered the arbitration and warranty provisions together, in part because the title of the paragraph, “Warranties and Dispute Resolution” signaled that the provisions should be read as a whole. Since the Mungo paragraphs were separated, the Court of Appeals said they should be read separately. In addition, the two provisions did not contain cross references.
The Court next addressed the Huskins’ argument that the limitation of claims provision restricted the statutory limitations period from three years to 90 days and was therefore not severable from the arbitration clause. The Court agreed that the provision that limited the statute of limitations is one-sided and oppressive, but held that the arbitration clause is enforceable because the unconscionable provision is severable.
After concluding that the Huskins lacked a meaningful choice in entering the arbitration clause, the Court of Appeals held that the arbitration clause’s shortening of the statute of limitations violates South Carolina law and is therefore unconscionable and unenforceable.
The Circuit Court’s order was affirmed as modified.
Now …. back to the Murdaugh trial!
*South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5916 (June 1, 2022, Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled February 15, 2023.
Let's Talk Dirt 