Charleston is exploding!

The locals are expecting a quarter-million neighbors!

Last weekend, about sixty commercial dirt lawyers attended South Carolina Bar’s Dave Whitener Real Estate Intensive Workshop in Kiawah Island. This workshop is held every-other-year and honors the memory of the late, great real estate lawyer and law school professor who planned and moderated it for many years until his untimely death in 2014. I think Dave would have enjoyed the collaboration and education we all enjoyed last weekend*.

And I think he would have been shocked at changes in the Charleston area!

Charleston Ravenel Bridge

Charleston is exploding! Kiawah Island itself is in the throes of a major renovation anticipating its next PGA tournament in 2021. As we left Kiawah Island early Sunday morning, a time we could survey our surroundings with no traffic, we were amazed at the new subdivisions that have sprung up between the beautiful island and I-26 as well as those in the North Charleston area where the Boeing plant is located. The area is changing so fast it’s hard to recognize even for someone who does business in the area and visits it often.

I was not surprised to see this Charleston Post and Courier article entitled “105,000 homes await construction in the Charleston metro area” by David Slade dated July 18. The article begins with the premise that Charleston-area residents are about to welcome 250,000 neighbors—roughly equal to the population growth Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester Counties have experienced since 1990. Wrap your brain around that thought! The anticipated housing, according to this report, is nearly enough to accommodate the combined populations of Charleston and neighboring Mount Pleasant, which are the largest and fourth-largest cities in South Carolina.

Traffic is already horrible in the area. We hear from many lawyer friends and their staff members who fight increasing traffic to get into work each morning. When the I-526 bridge over the Wando River was closed recently for emergency repairs, we heard that some lawyers found it easier to take boats to work rather than to deal with the detour around the bridge. The emergency repairs required for this bridge are an example of the challenged infrastructure in the area.

But, as this article points out, area governments will see added tax revenues from the new growth, which will be needed for the roads and other infrastructure. Mr. Slade points out that residents of John Island, Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island and Wadmalaw Island have been waiting for many years for planned improvements to the Maybank Highway and River Road intersection which bottlenecks each day. The islands are beautiful places to live, but getting into Charleston to work can be problematic at best.

Charleston is the number 1 tourist destination in the United States and the number 2 tourist destination in the world. All of us in the real estate business will be looking with interest as this anticipated growth unfolds in the Holy City and its surrounding areas.

*Among the speakers this year was Dave’s widow, also a commercial real estate lawyer extraordinaire, Patricia Wharton Whitener, and two of Dave’s best friends, litigator Robert E. Stepp and USC Law Professor S. Alan Medlin. The line-up was excellent, and I encourage other lawyers who practice in the area of commercial real estate to attend this workshop at each offering!

Beware of new deceptive strains of payroll phishing

hacker dollar

This blog has recommended KnowBe4 previously as an impressive source of news on cybersecurity. I have subscribed to the newsletter and receive weekly, timely and scary cybercrime updates in my inbox. I recommend to all lawyers that they spend the time and funds necessary to remain safe and vigilant in the arena of cybersecurity. Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our clients’ funds. In this case, however, it is our operating funds and our employees’ funds that are at risk. Those funds are important, too!

The July 10 newsletter was particularly interesting in that it reports a new strain of payroll phishing that has surfaced recently. The bad actors pose as employees and request a specific pay stub from a payroll administrator or corporate executive. KnowBe4 reports that it has seen hundreds of these phishing attempts, all almost identically worded and possibly coming from one set of fraudsters. All of the emails came from an “oddball Comcast.net email address” with nonsense usernames of similar length.

Please read this newsletter carefully and pay attention to the emails and supporting documents. In this particular case, the bad actors opened a bank account, ordered checks for that account and used one of those checks to support the phishing attempt.

Unfortunately, many of the targeted payroll employees, always willing to help employees with their payroll concerns, have responded to the requests. The emails are simple, direct and dispense with any attempt to construct believable backstories or pretexts. According to KnowBe4, the emails invite an unthinking, reflexive response from targeted users.

Share this information with your staff members and encourage them to avoid those unthinking, reflexive responses!

Redevelopment of golf courses might be possible in South Carolina

In April, this blog discussed the redevelopment of two Horry County golf courses. The North and South courses at Deer Track Golf Resort in Deerfield Plantation have been closed for more than ten years and are finally being redeveloped as residential lots. Adjacent lot owners waged class actions in Horry County seeking to have the use of the properties in question restricted to golf courses or open spaces. While these battles were being waged in court, nature attempted to reclaim the properties. One property owner testified that his views changed from overlooking a manicured golf course to overlooking a “sea of weeds”.

Similar battles have been successful in other parts of the country. The cases are fact intensive and turn on the law of implied easements, which, of course, varies widely from state to state. Plats showing golf courses may provide rights in adjacent lot owners, depending on the recorded documents, the sales program and the law of implied easements in the location.

golf course

I wanted to invite those interested in this area of the law to take a look at an article published in June by www.citylab.com. The article, written by Nolan Gray, is entitled “Dead Golf Courses Are the New NIMBY Battlefield”. In the interest of full disclosure, I had to Google NIMBY. This acronym stands for “not in my back yard”.

The article states that golf is dying, according to many experts. One study cited in Citylab’s article found that the number of regular golfers fell from 30 to 20.9 million between 2002 and 2016. The thinking is that the fall of Tiger Woods may have led to much of this gloom and doom around golfing. But Mr. Gray believes that the bigger story involves the sport’s aging demographics and the fact that millennials are not interested in the expensive, slow sport that provides few health benefits.

Golf courses and golf clubs across the country are closing, leaving the land to be redeveloped. Mr. Gray’s article states that the average 18-hole golf course sits on 150 acres, property that could host around 600 new single-family detached homes. Add to this mix the fact that many golf communities were built in areas with good schools and work opportunities. These properties are, therefore, particularly valuable in areas where housing inventory is a challenge.

So, what prohibits the development of these properties into residential subdivisions? Zoning is one of the challenges. Many golf courses are zoned for commercial uses to accommodate clubhouses, restaurants, pro shops and bars. But the main stumbling block, according to Mr. Gray, is the NIMBY attitude of neighbors. Residents near golf courses prefer that the properties be turned into parks, open spaces and natural preserves.

Let’s look, for example, at the Deerfield Plantation cases. First, the facts: The golf courses and surrounding residential subdivisions were originally developed beginning in the late 1970’s. The plats contained notes to the effect that the streets were dedicated for public use but the golf courses were to be maintained privately and were specifically not dedicated to public use.

The covenants gave the lot owners no rights, property, contractual, or otherwise, in the golf courses. A Property Report that was delivered to all prospective lot purchasers described the costs of golf memberships, which were not included in lot prices, and stated that to be allowed to use the golf courses, members would be required to pay initial dues and annual dues and fees. The real estate agents made it clear during the sales program that the mere purchase of a lot did not give a lot owner any right or entitlement to use the golf courses. The deeds of the lots did not convey any easements or other interests in the golf courses.

One plaintiff, who was also a real estate agent, testified that he was never told the golf courses would operate in perpetuity and that the real estate agents never told other potential purchasers that the golf courses would always exist on the properties.

What caused the golf courses to fail? When the golf courses opened, there were 30 – 40 golf courses in the Myrtle Beach area. By the time the golf courses closed, there were nearly 125 courses. Property taxes in the golf courses increased from $7,800 per year to $90,000 per year. And then the economy tanked. These three factors have occurred across the country to varying extents.

Now, let’s look at South Carolina law. In one of the cases, a 38-page Order of Thomas J. Wills, Special Referee, examined the law of implied easements in South Carolina. I’m summarizing and eliminating the citations for this brief discussion.

The Order states that implied easements are not favored by the courts in South Carolina and must be strictly construed. The intent of the parties controls the existence and scope of implied easements, and the best evidence of that intent is the recorded documents. While case law in South Carolina is clear that lot owners in subdivisions hold easements in streets shown on plats by which their lots are sold, the order states that this rule does not extend beyond access, which is necessary and expected for residential purposes. Finally, the order states that no implied easements in views, breezes, light or air exist in this state.

Finally, these golf courses will be redeveloped into new residential subdivisions. Will we see more of this litigation in South Carolina? Probably. While the law in South Carolina appears generally to favor redevelopment in these cases, there is no doubt that the facts in some of the situations may give rise to implied easements in adjacent lot owners, even in the face of our law. As long as we have NIMBY attitudes of those who live near defunct golf courses, we will continue to see litigation in this area.

Feds extend timeframe of FinCEN order

Will this obligation eventually extend to South Carolina?

Secretly purchasing expensive real estate continues to be a popular method for criminals to launder dirty money. Setting up shell entities allows these criminals to hide their identities. When the real estate is later sold, the money has been miraculously cleaned.

In early 2016, The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the United States Department of the Treasurer issued an order that required the four largest title insurance companies to identify the natural persons or “beneficial owners” behind the legal entities that purchase some expensive residential properties.

shutterstock_1074483872

At that time, the reach of the project extended to the Borough of Manhattan in New York City, and Dade County, Florida, where Miami is located. In those two locations, the designated title insurance companies were required to disclose to the government the names of buyers who paid cash for properties over $1 million in Miami and over $3 million in Manhattan. The natural persons behind the legal entities had to be reported for any ownership of at least 25 percent in an affected property.

By order effective August 28, 2016, all title insurance underwriters, in addition to their affiliates and agents, were required to be involved in the reporting process, and the footprint of the project was extended.

The targeted areas and their price thresholds as of August 28, 2016 were:

Borough of Manhattan, New York; $3 million;
Boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx, New York; $1.5 million;
Borough of Staten Island, New York; $1.5 million;
Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, Florida; $1 million;
Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Diego Counties, California; $2 million; and
Bexar County (San Antonio), Texas; $500,000.

By order effective September 22, 2017, wire transfers were included, and the footprint of the project will include transactions over $3 million in the city and county of Honolulu, Hawaii.

The Geographic Targeting Orders were updated again beginning March 21, 2018, and extended to September 16, 2018

Although the initial project was termed temporary and exploratory, FinCEN has indicated that the project is helping law enforcement identify possible illicit activity and is also informing future regulatory approaches.

We have no way of knowing whether or when this program may be expanded to South Carolina, but it is entirely likely that expensive properties along our coast are being used in money laundering schemes. We will keep a close watch on this program for possible expansion!

New Cybersecurity law in SC affects insurance companies and agents

The effective date is January 1, 2019

South Carolina’s legislature passed a cybersecurity bill on April 18, and Governor Henry McMaster signed it into law on May 3. The new law, which requires that insurers and producers (agents) must establish “strong and aggressive” programs to protect companies and consumers from data breaches, goes into effect at the beginning of next year. The law is called South Carolina Data Security Act, and it will be found at §38-99-10 et seq. of the South Carolina Code.

Insurers and agents must develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive written information security program based on internal risk assessments which contain administrative, technical and physical safeguards for the protection of nonpublic information.

New rules were created that include overseeing third party providers, investigating data breaches and notifying regulators, including the South Carolina Department of Insurance, of cybersecurity events.

security unlocked data breach

Notification is required to the DOI within 72 hours after determining a cybersecurity event has occurred. Each incident must also be investigated to determine the scope of the breach, the nonpublic information compromised, and the measures to restore the security of the information.

Safe guarding individual insurance policy holders’ personal information is a high priority in the wake of several major insurance companies’ data breaches. Insurers and agents are required to mitigate the potential damage caused by date breaches.

South Carolina was the first state to pass this measure based on the model law developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Cybersecurity Working Group. South Carolina Insurance Director Raymond Farmer chaired the group.

How will this new law be applied to real estate lawyers who are also title insurance agents? My guess is that the title insurance companies, which probably already have complying programs in place, will provide guidance to their agents between now and the end of the year. Stay tuned!

Two new fraud scams

The fraudsters keep updating their repertoires!

Fraudsters are creative! It seems as soon as we learn and educate our staff members about new fraud schemes, the swindlers change their schemes to keep us on our toes. I wanted to pass along two new schemes that recently came to my attention.

The first was reported in our company publication, Fraud Insights, and it involved a residential sale in Las Vegas. An astute title insurance company employee, Larissa Conrad, was able to frustrate the fraudster’s plans. Here’s how the scheme unfolded. On March 7, Larissa sent an estimated closing statement to the listing agent. The closing involved the payoff of a Wells Fargo mortgage. The listing agent purportedly sent back to Larissa, by email, an “updated” payoff statement. Larissa compared the two payoff statements carefully. The wiring instructions were particularly troubling:

Larissa called the payoff lender and confirmed her suspicion that the second payoff was from a fraudster. She then called the listing agent, using a trusted telephone number, and reported that someone was posing as him in the transaction and sending emails from an account that looked like his. She wired the correct payoff amount using the correct wiring instructions, saving $153,300.37.

The second scam, involving texting, was reported by CyberheistNews. The victim receives a text asking whether a password reset for a Gmail account has been requested. If not, the text advises, please reply with the word “STOP”. If the victim replies with “STOP”, the next text urges the victim to send a six-digit numerical code in order to prevent the password from being changed. By sending the code back to the attacker, the victim is enables the bad guy to complete the password change and to have access to the account and all its email.

Remember that Google and other companies will not ask whether you don’t want to do something with your account. A reply to a text like this often notifies the fraudster that a valid telephone number has been reached.

two factor authentication

A two-factor authentication process is highly recommended because it provides an additional layer of security and makes it harder for attackers to gain access. The victim’s password alone is not enough to pass a two-factor authentication process. Typically, the first authentication factor would be based on knowledge (a password) and the second factor would be based on possession (of an ID card, a token or a smartphone, for example). Ask your IT professionals for assistance is keeping your accounts safe by using this process.

And, as always, the best advice may be to keep schooling yourself about the various scams as they are reported. I’ll do my best to help!

Despite a decade of litigation by lot owners….

Two Surfside golf courses are being redeveloped into residential lots

The North and South courses at Deer Track Golf Resort in Deerfield Plantation have been closed for more than ten years and are finally being redeveloped as residential lots. Adjacent lot owners waged class actions in Horry County seeking to have the use of the properties in question restricted to golf courses or open spaces. While these battles were being waged in court, nature attempted to reclaim the properties. One property owner testified that his views changed from overlooking a manicured golf course to overlooking a “sea of weeds”.

golf course

Let’s look at how the Deerfield Plantation cases were decided. First, the facts: The golf courses and surrounding residential subdivisions were originally developed beginning in the late 1970’s. The plats contained notes to the effect that the streets were dedicated for public use but the golf courses were to be maintained privately and were specifically not dedicated to public use.

HOA foreclosures are being challenged on multiple levels in SC

The HOA won in a recent Court of Appeals case

In January, I blogged about a Federal class action lawsuit filed in Charleston seeking to invalidate non-condo foreclosures by owners’ associations. You can read that blog here but the short version is that the suit challenges foreclosures on the grounds that these non-profit corporations don’t have the power to create liens for unpaid assessments prior to obtaining judicial judgments. Condominium associations established through the Horizontal Property Regime Act have statutory authority to create liens, but the power of non-condo projects is created by restrictive covenants. We’ll have to wait and see how that suit turns out, but if the plaintiffs there are successful, foreclosure practice will change drastically in South Carolina.

gavel house

Our Court of Appeals decided a case* on April 4^th that could have made drastic changes in another way. In fact, Richland County’s Master-in-Equity, Joseph Strickland, stated in his order that “the practice of homeowners’ association foreclosures would effectively be eradicated if (the Plaintiffs’) position came to bear.”

This appeal was handled by the law office of my friend, Brian Boger, a Columbia lawyer and well-known champion of consumers’ rights. The appeal argued that the $3,036 successful bid “shocked the conscience” and violated equitable principles. The parties agreed that the home was valued at $128,000. There was a mortgage balance of $66,004, leaving equity of $61,996. The Hales did not argue that there were irregularities in foreclosure process, but instead argued that the low bid should have encouraged the Master to use his gavel to “do equity”.

Comparing the successful bid to their equity using the “Equity Method”, the Hales argued that the bid amounted to 4.8% of the fair market value of the property. The HOA argued, using the “Debt Method”, that the bid must be added to the senior mortgage balance to judge its sufficiency because the successful bidder would have to pay the senior mortgage to have good title. In this case, using the Debt Method, the bid amounted to 54.94% of the fair market value. The Court of Appeals agreed that the Debt Method was the proper method for considering a senior encumbrance in a foreclosure.

The Court found no South Carolina cases that expressly weighed the two methods of judging a bid, but pointed to prior cases that considered the amount of a senior mortgage in the determination and found a 3.15% bid sufficient. One reason the Court of Appeals prefers the Debt Method is that it will result in “fewer set asides”. In other words, the Court of Appeals is not interested in upsetting the foreclosure practice applecart at this point.

Justice Lockemy dissented, stating that he thought it improper to give a judicial sale buyer credit for assuming a debt it is not legally required to pay. He said the Court’s decision could create a perverse circumstance where a judicial sale bidder purchases property for a de minimis amount simply to capitalize on rental revenue until the senior lienholder forecloses. The majority called this argument a solution in search of a problem because there was no evidence that the successful bidder in this case was engaged in such a scheme and because the successful bidder must satisfy the mortgage to obtain clear title.

Foreclosure practice in South Carolina remains the same…for now.

* Winrose Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Hale, South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5549 (April 4, 2018)

Scary telephone identity compromise story from one of our own

Our company distributes a great publication, Fraud Insights, which tells scary fraud stories every month. Lisa Tyler, National Escrow Administrator, edits this publication and does a great job keeping us informed about new scams. A Fraud Insights story in March came from one of our company employees who told her personal identity compromise story to prevent it happening to the rest of us. I’m going to translate the story to South Carolina terms and call the victim Pam Paralegal.

Pam Paralegal was working on a messy residential purchase file in her office in Charleston and was not focusing on the telephone call on her cell phone that she received purportedly from her personal bank. The caller ID was indeed Pam’s bank’s name. When Pam answered, the caller identified herself as Jill Jones and said she was with the fraud department of the bank. Ms. Jones said she was going to text a code to Pam to confirm Pam’s identity.

scammer calling

Pam received the text code and read it back to Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones then asked if Pam had authorized a $1,000 transfer from her account that morning. Pam said that she had not made that transfer. Pam told Ms. Jones that she would log into her online account to determine whether that transfer was showing up, but Ms. Jones told Pam the bank had already shut down her ability to access her account via the Internet. Ms. Jones told Pam that she needed her to read off an additional text code to authorize the shutdown. When Pam read the second text code back, the phone line went dead.

Pam immediately started receiving emails from her real bank. The first email confirmed a change in Pam’s password. The second email confirmed Pam had authorized a $1,000 withdrawal via electronic funds transfer. Pam called her bank to report the incident and later received a call back from the real fraud department. Pam was informed that the thieves had stolen $1,000 by using her Social Security number, and that they really had shut down her account.

Pam purchased a credit monitoring service, filed a police report, and contacted all three credit bureaus to make them aware of the incident. And she is still missing $1,000.

Here are seven tips from the Better Business Bureau ® (BBB) offers to protect against telephone scams:

Do not trust caller ID: Victims fall for telephone scams because they assume the number on their caller ID is the correct person. Scammers can easily spoof numbers to make it look like a certain person is calling you, when in reality they are not. Some scammers will use your own telephone number for the caller ID. Others will use your prefix with a different last four digits to make you assume you’re being contacted by a neighbor.
Do not give out personal information: Any legitimate person or business who reaches out to you will already have your information on hand. If they do not, or if you receive a call out of the blue asking for personal information, just hang up.
Scammers usually pose as a trusted source: Like the story from Pam who was called from someone posing as an employee in the fraud department of her bank, scammers will pose as a trusted source to attempt to obtain information from you. Hang up immediately.
Do not press buttons: Many “robocallers” will prompt you to “press 9” to be taken off their call list. Pressing 9 will only do the opposite and flood your phone with even more calls. Pressing a number on the keypad alerts the scammers that they have reached an active telephone number.
Beware of big name companies calling: Scammers impersonate big name companies, charities and legitimate businesses, hoping that you will be more inclined to give personal information to them. If you receive such a call, hang up immediately, find the appropriate number and call the business to verify.
Sign up for the Do Not Call Registry: To cut down on the amount of calls you receive, you can register your phone number for free through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Do Not Call Registry. This registry prohibits calls, informational calls, telephone survey calls and calls from companies you have recently done business with.
Do not answer: If you receive a call from a number you don’t recognize, let it go to voicemail. Any legitimate person or business will leave a message. If a scammer decides to leave voicemail, you will have time to think about what is being asked by them, instead of being pressured on the spot to give up your personal information.

That last tactic is the one used in our household and with my business cellphone. If I don’t recognize the number, I don’t answer the call. It makes more sense to return the call of a legitimate caller than to become involved with a scammer or telemarketer. That’s my plan and I’m sticking to it!

South Carolina Dirt Lawyers: Are you as confused by the SC Supreme Court’s most recent implied easement case as I am?

I’ve never maintained a list of the South Carolina real estate cases I find mystifying, but the most recent implied easement case, which involves a gravel driveway in Lexington County, may compel me to start.* When I say mystifying, I mean I can’t figure out why the Court came to the conclusion it did, based on what I had previously understood to be the law.

lost confused.jpg

The case is Gooldy v. The Storage Center-Platt Springs, LLC **, decided March 18. One reason I found the case puzzling was that it failed to include the plat. When that happens, I usually attempt to draw the properties based on the language in the case, but I was unable to accomplish that in this situation. So for your edification, the main plat in question is included here.

Thanks to the efforts of my friend, Bill Booth, who sent the plat along with the chains of title and aerial views for both properties, I’ve at least figured out the facts in the case.

Here’s what happened. Congaree Associates owned 500 acres in Lexington County. In the 1980s, Congaree developed a residential subdivision of thirteen lots, called Westchester Phase I. Robert Collingwood created the plat for the subdivision. The plat was dated August of 1983 and was recorded. The northernmost lot (Lot 13) bordered the property now owned by Gooldy. This plat does not show a road crossing Lot 13. Six months later, in January of 1984, Collingwood was asked to prepare a survey for Westchester Phase II. That plat included the disputed road as “50’ Road”. The plat was conditionally approved, but the developer abandoned the subdivision. We don’t know the date of this abandonment.

In December of 1985, Collingwood prepared the Loflin plat, linked above. Note the “50’ Road” bordering the 0.68 tract. In September of 1986, Congaree conveyed the 0.68 tract to Loflin by a deed that incorporated this plat but made no mention of the road. The 0.68 acre tract was conveyed four times during the next sixteen years, and each deed incorporated the Loflin plat. The final conveyance was to Gooldy in January of 2002. Gooldy used the road for access for himself and the customers of his chiropractic business. In 2007, Congaree conveyed a 7.5 acre tract to The Storage Center. The disputed road was included in the 7.5 acre tract. The Storage Center’s representatives informed Gooldy that he was no longer entitled to use the road. Gooldy filed suit seeking to establish an easement.

The master in equity held that the deed incorporated the plat and established a presumption of an implied easement which The Storage Center failed to rebut. The master found that because Collingwood surveyed Westchester Phase I and II, he knew Congaree intended to build a road, and armed with that knowledge, Collingwood included the road on the Loflin plat. Huh? What if another surveyor had been employed? Does the fact that a surveyor called it a road make it so?

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the presumption did not arise because the deed only incorporated the plat to describe the metes and bounds of the 0.68 acre tract rather than to demonstrate the intent to create an easement.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Loflin plat created the presumption of an implied easement as established by Blue Ridge Realty Co. v. Williamson*** and its progeny. In Blue Ridge, a developer subdivided its property into lots and streets and recorded the plat. The Court held that purchasers of lots with reference to the recorded plat acquired every easement, privilege and advantage shown on the plat, including the right to use all the streets, near or remote, shown by the plat by which the lots were purchased.

There is no question that the Loflin plat was in The Storage Center’s chain of title. And there is no question that the two properties share a common grantor, Congaree Associates. What is missing in my understanding of the Blue Ridge holding is a subdivision plat, by which conveyances from the common grantor to Loflin and The Storage Center were made. Here, the common grantor did record a subdivision plat before any out conveyances were made and it did not show the road. Years later, the surveyor, who happened to have knowledge of a proposed (but later abandoned subdivision), depicted a road that he knew would be used if the subdivision was created on a plat he made, not for the common grantor, but for the purchaser, Loflin. And that plat and a deed referring to it created an implied easement.

If this case makes sense to you, please explain it to me!

* Here are two off the top of my head: Smith v. Cutler and Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc. Name your favorite!

** South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27782, March 14, 2018.

*** 247 S.C. 112, 145 S.E.2d 922 (1965).

	jonathan Hammer levy on Department of Justice takes la…
	Claire Manning on Department of Justice takes la…
	Dennis on Department of Justice takes la…
	Henrietta Gill on CFPB issues Advisory Opinion o…
	Claire Manning on Richland County passes short-t…

Let's Talk Dirt

A discussion of real estate, SC law, title and all things dirt-y.

CTIC