Rob P. Davis

Surfside Beach and the Continuing Threat of Business Email Compromise

Standard

According to news reports, the town of Surfside Beach may be one of the latest victims of a business email compromise-type fraud attack. Unfortunately, early reports suggest that the town may have lost over half a million dollars to scammers. South Carolina’s State Law Enforcement Division is actively investigating this incident, so the information we have is limited and unproven, but if true this amount would represent a loss of funds equal to approximately 2.6% of the town’s 2025-2026 budget.

Wildcat Construction was engaged by the town to do some work on its public utilities, and one of its bills, in the amount of $545,598.30, was due for payment. On March 13, 2026, the town indicates it initiated an ACH payment to what they thought was an account belonging to Wildcat, but Wildcat says that it has no such account and that it had requested payment by check. The town released a public statement in which it acknowledged it had “identified a potential cybersecurity incident involving its email environment,” and reported the incident to law enforcement. Details about what exactly may have happened internally at the town level are pretty scant. While SLED is investigating, Wildcat maintains that it has not received the funds, and that it is still entitled to be paid. It is easy to imagine how a scammer might have sent a “spoofed” email to a Town employee, pretending to be an accounts receivable clerk for Wildcat, with a fake set of payment instructions for the Wildcat invoice. The same type of “spoof” attack happens all too often in real estate deals where the closing attorney is gathering invoices and payment instructions. If the Town employee failed to properly verify those payment instructions, then just like the danger of wire fraud in a real estate transaction, the funds could have been sent to a fraudster instead of the correct party.

Data published by the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, which tracks and reports cyber-crime involving US interests, indicates that both the number of cyber-crimes against, and the amount of property lost by, Americans continues to skyrocket. The IC3 reports that in 2025, it received a total 1,008,597 of cyber-crime complaints for all types of cyber-crime, and it tracked over $20.8 Billion in total losses related to cyber-crimes. The clear indication here is that cyber-criminals are increasing their attacks on our businesses, and are succeeding in stealing more of our money.  

This incident is yet another example highlighting the importance of verifying payment instructions with a known, trusted contact. That includes not only the routing/account numbers, but also the form of payment. In this example, Wildcat says it told Surfside they wanted a check, but the payment was made via ACH to an account that Wildcat says it did not provide to the Town.

While the “worst case scenario” impact on Surfside Beach, even if these funds are permanently lost, looks like it would be below 3% of the town’s overall annual budget, the risk to South Carolina lawyers of wire fraud and business email compromise is potentially much more dire. For a small or solo real estate-focused law firm whose annual fee revenues might be closer to the $1,000,000.00-mark, loss of funds for a mortgage payoff could be much higher as a percentage of the firm’s budget. If we assume that a typical mortgage payoff for a SC home might be around $250,000.00, then it’s easy to see how that amount, when targeted by fraudsters, could be a devastating loss for a small firm. And, while this particular example was not a real estate law firm, it demonstrates that the fraudsters are out there actively targeting anyone they think they can, and that no one is immune to their attacks.

Stay vigilant out there, folks!

It’s the little things

Standard

Most real estate practitioners can relate to the experience of getting that call or email from a real estate agent, saying that a nice little deal is coming our way. The buyer and seller have already signed a contract and set a closing date. There may be some “little issues” that will need to be worked out before closing, but that should not be a problem. Right?

Often, a lawyer has been involved in preparing the contract or advising the parties before that call comes in. As often as not, those “little issues” turn out to be significant, and some can even derail a closing and pit the seller and purchaser against each other. The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in the case of Anderson v. Pearson, Appellate Case 2023-001897 (Ct. App., 2025) discussing a case where there were, in fact, some big issues. We are left to wonder how different the outcome might have been if an attorney had been consulted in drafting the contract and advising the parties as to its terms.

The basic facts of the case are that Pearson (together with some family members) owned acreage in Spartanburg County, on Lake Cooley. This consisted of one parcel which Anderson agreed to buy (and which the parties chose to refer to as the “twenty-acre parcel”), as well as another nine-acre parcel next to it. Anderson (who owned property adjacent to Pearson’s) and Pearson, communicating through a broker, negotiated and agreed to some basic contract terms including a purchase price and closing date. Other details, such as whether the property was to be defined in a new survey, and whose responsibility it would be to get a survey, were not included in the contract. The contract was, however, clear on the inclusion of a “time is of the essence”, merger, and non-reliance clauses. The contract included the (not very helpful) comment that “[b]rokers recommend Buyer have Property surveyed . .  .”

After depositing her earnest money, the record indicates that Anderson continued to communicate with Pearson via the broker, and that Pearson indicated multiple times that he was obtaining a survey of the 20 acres in order to address the placement of an access route that would be needed to get to and from the nine-acre parcel which he was not selling. Communications went back and forth for some time, with Pearson never providing a copy of the survey, and Anderson continuing to ask for updates. Pearson applied for mortgage financing through AgSouth, but the record indicates that she had not provided all the items (such as a title commitment or a survey) that AgSouth would require to make the loan.  Eventually, the contract closing date came and went. The broker told Anderson that Pearson was not returning her calls or texts. Eventually, several weeks later, Pearson told the broker “We are building on the property ourself. We no longer want to sell.”  Turns out the Pearsons had actually gotten a survey but chose not to share it with Anderson. And the Pearsons had determined that they could sell the property to a developer for more than twice what Anderson had agreed to pay.

Some months later, Anderson filed suit for specific performance. At summary judgment, the Master in Equity conducted a trial and entered a judgment granting Anderson’s request for specific performance. Anderson offered evidence at trial concerning communications about the survey, which were not reflected in the written contract. A significant ruling by the Master in reaching her decision was that Pearson should be equitably estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds to exclude Anderson’s evidence of those communications. Pearson appealed, raising several issues on appeal.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Master’s order, focusing on the Master’s application of the Statute of Frauds and equitable estoppel. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found that Anderson’s reliance on Pearson’s communications was not reasonable. The Court of Appeals believed that Anderson should have realized that Pearson was delaying, and gotten her own survey. Additionally, the Court of Appeals expressed its view that Anderson did not change her position in reliance on Pearson’s communications about the survey, and since detrimental reliance is an element of equitable estoppel, the Court of Appeals held the Master erred in finding that equitable estoppel should apply to Pearson in his assertion of the Statute of Frauds.

As additional grounds, the Court of Appeals opined that since the contract did not require Pearson to provide a survey, the merger and non-reliance clauses weighed in Pearson’s favor on that point. The Court of Appeals proposed that the Master should have applied the parol evidence rule to Anderson’s offer of communications outside the contract itself. Further, the “time of the essence” clause, in the Court of Appeals’ view, meant that since the contract had expired by its own terms, and Anderson had not demonstrated that she had been able to timely perform her obligations under the contract (i.e. she did not show that she had the cash ready to pay the purchase price) specific performance was not available as a remedy. 

This case may be a good example to mention to real estate agents and brokers (as well as clients) to demonstrate the value of a clearly drafted contract and of legal advice from a seasoned real estate attorney as to contract terms.