Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In December 2004, Atlantic Carolina Retail, LLC loaned $3,075,000 to Monarch Development, LLC. Atlantic collateralized the loan by taking a mortgage on three properties. Atlantic purchased a title insurance policy from First American Title Insurance Company to insure these mortgage interests against potential title defects. Subsequently, Atlantic assigned the mortgages and secured debt to Preservation Capital Consultants, LLC. In 2008, Monarch Development sold its parcel and paid Preservation Capital money to release its lien on that property. Then, Monarch defaulted on its loan agreement with Preservation Capital. Preservation Capital discovered Monarch Development never owned the parcel; instead, Monarch Holdings owned it. Monarch Holdings later transferred the property to a third party without payment or notice to Preservation Capital. Preservation Capital ultimately foreclosed. Atlantic purchased the property at the foreclosure sale by way of a credit bid. After foreclosing on the parcel, Monarch Development owed Preservation Capital a remaining balance. Preservation Capital filed a claim under its policy with First American for the amount it was unable to collect on the one of the other parcels due to the title defect. First American denied coverage. Preservation Capital filed this action when First American refused its claim. Both parties moved for summary judgment. First American Title Insurance Company appealed the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Preservation Capital. First American argued the circuit court misconstrued the terms of the title insurance policy in finding Preservation Capital was entitled to recover under the policy. Finding the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Preservation Capital, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Preservation Capital v. First American" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was a court of appeals' finding that Wachovia Bank, N.A. committed the unauthorized practice of law in closing a home equity loan in 2001. In 2001, Michael Coffey obtained a home equity line of credit from the Bank, using a Hilton Head Island home as collateral. While the mortgage documents the Bank prepared contained language that Michael owned the home, he was not on the title to the home. It belonged to his wife Ann alone. Ann did not sign the line of credit papers. The money was used to purchase a sailboat, the title of which placed in the name of A&M Partners, a company both Michael and Ann jointly owned. Michael made payments on the boat from a personal checking account. He died in 2005, and Ann continued to make payments from the same personal checking account until she decided to sell the boat through a broker. The Broker checked the status of the Bank's loan. It informed Ann that there was no lien or mortgage on the boat. Believing that the boat was then paid for, she sold the boat in 2006 and stopped making payments. Six months later, the Bank filed a foreclosure action against Michael's estate. Ann moved to dismiss, and the trial court granted her motion for summary judgment, citing the Bank's failure to perform due diligence to see that Michael did not own the property the Bank used as collateral for the loan. Finding that the Bank never held a valid mortgage, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant summary judgment. View "Wachovia Bank v. Coffey" on Justia Law

Petitioners' properties were in danger of foreclosure. Prior to any foreclosure action, Petitioners obtained loan modifications from their respective lenders to extend their loans' maturity dates and receive additional time to pay. Petitioners were unable to keep up with payments under the modification, and sought to prevent foreclosure arguing that the lenders engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by modifying the loans without an attorney. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that modifying the loans without attorneys was not the unauthorized practice of law. View "Crawford v. Central Mortgage" on Justia Law

The Town of Hollywood filed suit against William Floyd, Troy Readen, and Edward McCracken (collectively, the developers) seeking a declaration that the developers could not subdivide their property without approval from the Town's Planning Commission and an injunction prohibiting subdivision of the property until such approval was obtained. The developers filed counterclaims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging equal protection and due process violations as well as various state law claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town on its claims for equitable and declaratory relief, and also granted the Town's motion for a directed verdict on the developers' state law claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Town on the developers' due process claim, but awarded the developers $450,000 in actual damages on their equal protection claim. Both parties appealed. The Town argued that the circuit court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the developers' equal protection claim, and in granting the developers' motion for attorney's fees and costs. The developers argued the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Town on its claims for equitable and declaratory relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court concluded that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Town on its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief., but erred in denying the Town's motions for a directed verdict and JNOV because the developers failed to show the Planning Commission treated them differently than other similarly situated developers in the subdivision application process. View "Town of Hollywood v. Floyd" on Justia Law

Appellants owned property in North Myrtle Beach bounded by water on the west and north. In early 2007, they applied to the Department of Health and Environmental Control ("DHEC") for a critical area permit to construct a replacement bulkhead. DHEC issued a Critical Area Permit to Appellants. The permit included a special condition: "Provided the proposed bulkhead is placed in the same location as the existing bulkhead." In response to a complaint, a DHEC Enforcement and Compliance Project manager inspected Appellants' property and observed the replacement bulkhead was partially constructed in a different location along the northern property line and that fill dirt had been placed in the area between the house and new bulkhead. DHEC issued Appellants various written warnings, including a Cease and Desist Directive and a Notice of Violation and Admission Letter. However, follow-up inspections revealed Appellants continued to alter the critical area and construct the replacement bulkhead in a different, unauthorized location. Accordingly, DHEC sent Appellants a Notice of Intent to Revoke the permit. Thereafter, (in 2010) DHEC issued a separate administrative enforcement order assessing against Appellants a civil penalty of $54,0002 and requiring Appellants to restore the impacted portion of the critical area to its previous condition. However, rather than requesting a contested case before the ALC, Appellants filed an action in circuit court seeking judicial review of the Enforcement Order de novo and requesting a final order "overturning [DHEC's] [Enforcement Order] and decision dated [. . .] 2010, with prejudice[.]" The circuit court granted DHEC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found section 48-39-180 did not confer jurisdiction on the circuit court to review administrative enforcement orders issued by DHEC. Rather, the circuit court held such orders were administrative in nature and governed by the APA. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court and affirmed dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Berry v. SCDHEC" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case arose from an administrative law court's (ALC) decision authorizing Respondent Kiawah Development Partners to construct a bulkhead and revetment on Captain Sam's Spit (the Spit) on Kiawah Island. In 1999, the Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) established a baseline and building set back line twenty feet landward based on information that the Spit had accreted, and had not been subject to any significant, measurable erosion between 1959 and 1999. The movement of the baseline prompted Respondent to consider development of the Spit. On February 29, 2008, Respondent submitted an application to DHEC for a permit to construct a combination bulkhead and revetment in the area. On December 18, 2008, DHEC issued a conditional permit approving the construction of the erosion control structure for a distance of 270 feet. DHEC refused the permit request for a remaining 2,513 feet based on its concerns regarding cumulative negative impacts, including interference with natural inlet formation and possible adverse effects on wintering piping plovers. DHEC also determined that the project was contrary to the policies set forth in the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP). Respondent requested a final review conference by the DHEC Board, but the Board declined to hold a review conference. Respondent then requested a contested case hearing before the ALC, and challenged the denial of the construction of a bulkhead and revetment along the remaining 2,513 feet. The Coastal Conservation League (CCL) opposed the construction of any bulkhead or revetment on the Spit, and also requested a contested case hearing challenging the decision to authorize the 270 foot structure, but supporting denial of the remainder. The cases were consolidated. The ALC granted Respondent's permit to construct the bulkhead and revetment, subject to certain conditions reducing and altering its size. DHEC and CCL (collectively, Appellants) appealed the ALC's order. The Supreme Court reversed the ALC and remanded the issue in a decision published in late 2011. The Court subsequently granted Respondent's petition for rehearing, and accepted an amicus brief from the Savannah River Maritime Commission (the SRMC). The Court then withdrew its initial opinion, and issue this opinion, affirmed the decision of the ALC. "The essence of Appellants' argument is rooted in dissatisfaction with the verbiage and structure of the ALC's order, and not in actual errors of law or the absence of substantial evidence. The ALC acted within the permissible scope of its authority in modifying the existing permit to include a structure no larger than that requested by Respondent or initially reviewed by DHEC. On appeal of a contested case, we must affirm the ALC if the findings are supported by substantial evidence." View "Kiawah Development v. SCDHEC" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant Dunes West Golf Club, LLC, challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Town of Mount Pleasant. In 2006, the Town of Mount Pleasant amended its zoning ordinance to create the Conservation Recreation Open Space zoning district, which imposed land-use restrictions on all golf course properties in Mount Pleasant, permitting only recreation and conservation uses. Appellant desired to carve out residential lots on its golf course property by designating several noncontiguous parcels as potential home sites. Because the new zoning designation did not permit construction of new homes, Appellant sought to have the golf course property rezoned to allow residential development. The Town denied the rezoning request, and Appellant filed suit, claiming the Town's actions violated its equal protection and due process rights, and amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its property. Following discovery, the Town of Mount Pleasant successfully moved for summary judgment. The Court carefully reviewed each assignment of error and found summary judgment was properly granted. View "Dunes West v. Town of Mount Pleasant" on Justia Law

Robert W. Oskin, Glenn Small, and Freddie Kanos (collectively "Appellants") contested the Master-in-Equity's ruling that the assignment of a note and mortgage on a Myrtle Beach property did not violate the South Carolina Fraudulent Conveyance Statute, and that a payment made to South Carolina Bank & Trust (SCB&T) did not result in a pay-off of the amount due under the note and mortgage. Oskin entered into a contract to broker the sale of Wild Wing Plantation and Golf Course on behalf of Respondent Stephen Johnson (Johnson). The contract obligated Johnson to pay Oskin a finder's fee upon closing. Oskin found a buyer for the property, and the deal was closed. Johnson, however, failed to pay the finder's fee, and Oskin brought suit successfully obtaining a judgment against Johnson. While the breach of contract action was pending, Johnson approached his uncle, Respondent Michael Brown, about jointly purchasing an oceanfront lot and home located in Myrtle Beach. Johnson and Brown co-signed a promissory note to jointly purchase the property. Title to the property was conveyed to Brown and Johnson as tenants in common. In addition to the SCB&T mortgage, the property was later encumbered by a second mortgage lien in favor of Ameris Bank. Initially, Johnson made the monthly interest-only payments on the SCB&T note until early 2008 when he could no longer afford to; Brown paid the remaining monthly payments. Faced with his nephew unable to make payments on the loan, and because the Myrtle Beach property was appraised at a value considerably less than what was owed, Brown's wife Joan Brown formed an LLC to obtain another loan to pay down debt owed to SCB&T. The parties disputed the motive for the formation of the LLC and the subsequent assignment of the note. Oskin's complaint centered enforcement of his judgment for the finder's fee and its subrogation to that of the various banks once notes on the property were reassigned. Finding no error with the Master-in-Equity's ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Oskin v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Savannah Bank, N.A., (Bank) sought to foreclose on a property owned by Appellant Alphonse Stalliard. Appellant argued that he should not be held liable for a loan closed by a person acting on his behalf under a power of attorney. Appellant alleged, inter alia, that Bank did not conduct reasonable due diligence and did not verify Appellant's ability to pay. He filed a motion seeking additional time for discovery. The master-in-equity denied the motion and ruled in Bank's favor. Appellant appealed that decision, arguing that summary judgment was improper and that the master should have permitted additional time for discovery. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the master properly denied Appellant's motion. View "Savannah Bank v. Stalliard" on Justia Law

Appellant Library Associates purchased a building located at 404 King Street (404 King) which was formerly the main branch of the Charleston County Public Library. Charleston City Council adopted Zoning Ordinance 2007-147, which rezoned the entire 404 King property. Respondents Historic Charleston Foundation and Preservation Society of Charleston then brought this action to challenge the ordinance's legality. The master invalidated the ordinance finding it was unlawful spot zoning. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: "Zoning ordinances are presumed valid and the person attacking one bears the burden of showing the zoning decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unjust. In passing on the validity of a zoning ordinance, it is not within a court's prerogative to pass upon the wisdom or expediency of the municipality's decision. Respondents did not meet their heavy burden here." View "Historic Charleston v. City of Charleston" on Justia Law