Law Office of Gem McDowell, P.A

Probate vs. Non-Probate: A Practical, In-Depth Look at Assets After Death in South Carolina

When someone dies and the estate is settled, not all of the assets are treated the same way. Some assets go through probate, while others pass outside of probate.

Assets that pass through probate are called probate assets.

Assets that do not pass through or go through the probate process are called non-probate assets.

If you are helping settle the estate of a loved one who recently died or are engaging in estate planning for yourself and your family, understanding this distinction is important.

Below is a practical, comprehensive overview of the topic that goes beyond the surface.

Why Probate vs. Non-Probate Matters

First, why does it matter?

Probate vs. non-probate is not just a legal technicality or a matter of semantics. It has real-world implications for the heirs and beneficiaries.

Whether an asset like a house, vehicle, or bank account is subject to probate or not will determine:

  • How quickly the heir/beneficiary can take possession of certain assets
  • Whether court oversight is required
  • Whether the asset can be used/liquidated to satisfy creditors
  • Whether the asset goes into the probate estate or not

On this last point, only assets subject to probate make up the “probate estate.” It’s from this pool of assets that debts, taxes, and other expenses are paid, and what’s left over is then divided among heirs. If someone has purposely tried to avoid probate, the probate estate itself will be small or non-existent. Read more about what it means to avoid probate in South Carolina, and why it’s not always necessary.

We’ll look at the probate process more below. Next, what assets are subject to probate, and what aren’t?

Probate Assets vs. Non-Probate Assets (Which Assets Are Always, Never, Sometimes Subject to Probate)

Whether an asset is subject to probate or not does not depend on whether there’s a valid will. Instead, it’s the legal mechanism of transfer that determines whether the asset is subject to probate or will pass outside of it.

  • Probate: When the succession of ownership is determined either by the terms of the will or (if there is no will) by state intestacy law, the asset is subject to probate.
  • Non-probate: When the transfer of ownership is controlled by beneficiary designation, survivorship terms, or contract language, the asset is not subject to probate.

Assets subject to probate in South Carolina:

  • Real estate owned solely by the deceased
  • Deceased’s share in real estate owned as joint tenants in common (TIC)
  • Bank accounts solely in the name of the deceased with no valid POD (payable on death) designation
  • Bank accounts owned jointly without explicit survivorship language
  • Investment accounts with no valid beneficiary or TOD (transfer on death) designation
  • Vehicles, etc.*, owned solely by the deceased
  • Deceased’s share in a vehicle, etc.*, owned jointly with “AND” in the title
  • Deceased’s interest in a business without a valid written succession plan
  • Life insurance proceeds payable to the estate rather than an individual beneficiary
  • Life insurance proceeds from a policy with missing or invalid beneficiaries
  • Retirement accounts with missing or invalid beneficiaries
  • Unpaid wages, commissions, or refunds owed to the deceased at the time of death
  • Personal property (e.g., furniture, jewelry, clothing, physical cash)

Assets not subject to probate in South Carolina:

  • Real estate owned as joint tenants with rights of survivorship (JTWROS) or owned with explicit survivorship language in the deed
  • Vehicles, etc.*, with a TOD designation
  • Vehicles, etc.*, jointly owned with “OR” in the title
  • Deceased’s interest in a business with a valid written succession plan
  • Life insurance proceeds from a policy with a valid named beneficiary
  • Retirement accounts with a valid named beneficiary
  • Annuities with a valid named beneficiary
  • POD (payable-on-death) bank accounts
  • TOD (transfer-on-death) investment accounts
  • Assets correctly held in certain trusts

* “Vehicles, etc.” includes any property for which the SCDMV issues a title of ownership, including motor vehicles, mobile / manufactured homes, trailers / campers / RVs, etc.

Assets sometimes subject to probate depending on how they are owned/titled, include (but are not limited to):

  • Mineral rights
  • Digital assets
  • Timeshares
  • Intellectual property
  • Promissory notes
  • Structured settlements

A probate attorney can help unravel ownership and how these assets should be handled.

Cheat Sheet Chart by Asset and Ownership

Here’s a chart summarizing how different assets are categorized as probate or non-probate in South Carolina depending on how they are owned or titled:

Deceased’s interest in:  Subject to probate:                     Not subject to probate:       
Real estate / real property Owned solely by the deceased

Owned jointly as tenants in common (TIC)

Owned jointly as tenants with rights of survivorship (JTWROS) or otherwise owned jointly with explicit survivorship language
Vehicles, inc. motor homes, RVs, etc. Owned solely by the deceased without valid TOD designation

Owned jointly with “AND” in the title

Owned solely with valid TOD designation

Owned jointly with “OR” in the title

Bank and investment accounts Owned solely by the deceased without a POD or TOD designation

Owned jointly but without explicit survivorship language

Owned solely by the deceased with a valid POD or TOD designation

Owned jointly with explicit survivorship language

Retirement accounts, life insurance proceeds, and annuities Proceeds from policies and accounts with missing or invalid beneficiaries

Life insurance proceeds payable to the estate rather than an individual

Proceeds from policies and accounts with valid named beneficiaries

 

Business (LLC, partnership, etc.) Interest in business without a valid written succession plan Interest in business with a valid written succession plan
Other Unpaid wages, commissions, refunds owed to deceased at time of death

Personal property (e.g., furniture, jewelry, clothing, physical cash)

Assets correctly held in trust

 

Where Probate vs. Non-Probate Gets Complicated

The lists above are nice and neat, but they don’t fully reflect the sometimes-messy reality of probate. Here are some areas to watch out for that can cause confusion:

“Joint ownership” without survivorship language. In South Carolina, joint ownership doesn’t mean automatic ownership for the surviving co-owner. There must be explicit language regarding survivorship succession for the asset to pass outside probate. For real property, this means survivorship language in the deed itself. For bank accounts or investment accounts, this means survivorship language in the account agreement. If that language is missing, the deceased’s interest in that asset will be subject to probate.

Property located or titled in another state. Different states recognize different forms of ownership, which can affect whether an asset is subject to probate.

For example, South Carolina has not recognized a type of ownership of real property called “tenants by the entirety” (TBE) since 1953, but several other states still do. If a property owned as TBE is located in another state, a South Carolina court will follow the rules of that state. This usually means ownership of the deceased’s interest in the property will automatically pass to the surviving tenant outside probate. But if a property owned as TBE is located in SC (rare, but it can happen), and the deed does not contain explicit language on survivorship, it will be treated as if it were owned as joint tenants in common. Then the deceased’s interest in the property will be subject to probate.

Insolvent estates. Many assets passing outside of probate are shielded from creditors by law, but not all. In cases where the estate is insolvent – i.e., there’s not enough in the probate estate to cover debts, taxes, and other expenses – creditors may be able to recover from certain non-probate assets, even though they are not part of the probate estate.

Undetected errors, mistakes, and inconsistencies. Assets intended to pass outside of probate may end up in the probate estate for a variety of reasons, including named beneficiaries who are pre-deceased or missing, mistakes in language on a deed or title, unenforceable business operating agreements or buy-sell agreements, or improperly funded trusts. These kinds of errors only come to light in the course of settling the estate.

How Ownership of Probate Assets Passes, and How Long It Takes

Assets subject to probate must go through probate, the process of tying up legal and financial loose ends after a person dies, in order to be put in the heir’s possession.

The probate process is overseen by the county’s probate court. The personal representative, whose job it is to settle the estate of the deceased, often works with a probate attorney to get it done. Probate assets can only be transferred to heirs after approval from the probate court. Read more about the steps and costs of probate or read more about the role of the personal representative (aka executor) in South Carolina.

The personal representative and the probate attorney create an inventory of the deceased’s outstanding debts and assets. The assets subject to probate make up the “probate estate.” Debts, expenses, and final taxes are paid first out of the probate estate. Only then are the remaining assets distributed among heirs either according to the terms of the valid will or according to state intestacy laws. Read more about what happens to a person’s estate when they die “intestate” (without a will) and read more about the importance of probating the estate and taking the step-up in basis.

Timeline: How quickly heirs can take possession of their inheritance depends in part on state law, in part on the estate’s complexity and solvency. South Carolina law gives creditors eight months from the time notice is published to make a claim and expects most estates to be closed within three years after death.

Small estates: Small estates (estates with no real property that are valued under $45,000 as of May 2025) may qualify for a simplified, expedited process. Assets may pass to the heir(s) within just a few months after death.

Most estates: Disbursements typically occur within 9-12 months for most estates. If the estate is clearly solvent and straightforward, the personal representative may begin making partial disbursements even before the full eight months has passed.

Complicated and/or potentially insolvent estates: Disbursements typically occur once all outstanding issues (lawsuits, liens, debts, etc.) have been resolved, which may be many months or even years after death.

How Ownership of Non-Probate Assets Passes, and How Long It Takes

Ownership of assets not subject to probate passes according to the way the asset is owned or titled. Ownership is transferred:

Either automatically: For some assets, ownership passes automatically upon death without the heir/beneficiary having to do anything. E.g., interest in real estate owned as JTWROS or otherwise owned jointly with explicitly survivorship language in the deed; interest in a vehicle jointly owned with “OR” in the title; bank accounts owned jointly with survivorship language; and assets owned in certain kinds of trusts.

While it’s not absolutely necessary, the heir may have vehicles and real property retitled in his or her name only to keep the chain of title clean.

Or after claiming: For other assets, the heir/beneficiary must claim them to take legal possession. This usually requires submitting a claim form along with the death certificate and any other information required under the rules of the particular asset. E.g., life insurance proceeds, retirement account proceeds, POD or TOD accounts, and annuities.

Timeline: Heirs/beneficiaries may take or claim possession of non-probate assets right away without waiting for any set amount of time to pass. Approval from the probate court is not required. (Remember, however, that some non-probate assets may still be subject to creditors’ claims if the estate is insolvent.)

For Help with Estate Planning and Probate in SC, Call Gem McDowell

Are you the personal representative in charge of settling a loved one’s estate? Or are you looking for help with your own comprehensive estate plan? Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group can help. Gem has over thirty years of experience practicing in South Carolina, including helping families navigate the probate process and creating custom estate plans that avoid surprises and ensure peace of mind. Call today to schedule your free, no-obligation consultation. Offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC. Call 843-284-1021 today.

Attorneys and AI: Watch Out for Trouble

“If it were ever an excuse to plead ignorance of the risks of using generative AI to draft a brief without verifying its output, it is certainly no longer so.”

– Fletcher v. Experian Info Solutions, No. 25-20086 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026)

It’s past time to sound the alarm on the improper use of generative AI in the legal field.

Over the last three years, numerous attorneys, law clerks, pro se litigants, and others have gotten in trouble for filing documents with the court that contain fabricated and unverified material generated (“hallucinated”) by AI.

Just last month, the Supreme Court of Connecticut released an order (dated July 31, 2026; PDF) sanctioning an attorney for submitting filings that cited entirely fabricated cases. This came two weeks after the state’s Rules of Appellate Procedure were amended to require independent verification of all AI-produced citations and legal authorities (PDF).

It’s concerning that such errors could have found their way into one of the highest courts in the country. And that’s just one example – we’ll look at more below. Then we’ll answer the important question: Why does this keep happening?

Courts Sanction Attorneys for Improper AI Use

It’s not the use of generative AI per se that has gotten attorneys in trouble with the courts. It’s the use of AI without verifying the output, which has resulted in numerous filings that contain citations to non-existent cases, made-up quotes, incorrect summaries of existing cases, and the like.

Attorneys caught submitting filings with unverified AI-generated content have faced various sanctions, most commonly additional CLE hours and hefty fines. Many no doubt have suffered reputational damage and career fallout, too. While no attorneys appear to have been disbarred for careless use of generative AI – yet – multiple courts have warned against it.

Here are some notable examples out of hundreds of similar instances:

Mata v. Avianca (2023) – One of the first cases to gain national attention

Attorneys were sanctioned for filing a brief that cited cases, opinions, and quotes entirely fabricated by ChatGPT. Among other sanctions, they were ordered to pay $5,000 and to write letters to all the judges they had falsely cited.

At this time, ChatGPT was barely a year old, and the concept of AI hallucination (see below) not widely known. One of the sanctioned attorneys, Mr. Schwartz, stated, “I just was not thinking that the case could be fabricated… My reaction was, ChatGPT is finding that case somewhere. Maybe it’s unpublished. Maybe it was appealed. Maybe access is difficult to get. I just never thought it could be made up.”

See: Mata v. Avianca Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); Article from The New York Times

Park v. Kim (2024) – Notable for occurring in a federal appellate court

The attorney here cited a non-existent, AI-generated case in a brief submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was ordered to furnish a copy of the opinion to her client and referred to the Court’s Grievance Panel “Because this conduct falls well below the basic obligations of counsel.” While the sanction was not severe, this case is notable for being an early instance of unverified AI content going before a federal appellate court.

See: Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024); Article from The National Law Review

Whiting City v. City of Athens, Tennessee (2026) – Attorneys fined $15,000 each

Many attorneys have been ordered to pay a few thousand dollars, but the attorneys in this case faced a punitive sanction of $15,000 each, plus reimbursement of attorney’s fees and other costs, for submitting filings with fabricated and unverified citations and quotes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had some strong words: “They have brought the profession into disrepute… [They] have sullied the reputation of our bar, which now must litigate under the cloud of their conduct.”

See: Whiting v. City of Athens, No. 25-5424 (6th Cir. 2026) (PDF); Article

Withers v. City of Aberdeen (2026) – Attorneys disqualified from case

Earlier this summer, attorneys on both sides were fined and removed from a case for submitting briefs that included AI-generated mistakes. Two were also barred from appearing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. Disqualification has been rare, with judges preferring other sanctions that don’t remove the client’s legal representation.

See: Judge Aycock’s order (PDF); ABA Journal article

A Note on Pro Se Representation

Perhaps unsurprisingly, several similar instances have occurred in legal matters in which a party is representing himself or herself. Pro se litigants should not expect to get off lightly, however, simply because they are not admitted to the bar. Courts can and routinely do sanction these individuals, too.

In one notable example, a man representing himself had his case dismissed and was ordered to pay $10,000 to the Appellant for filing a frivolous appeal largely based on fictitious citations. See: Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024).

How and Why Does This Keep Happening?

This is happening with concerning frequency primarily because many attorneys and other legal professionals don’t realize how generative AI actually works.

AI chatbots are not just friendly, talkative search engines.

Rather, Generative AI tools generate new content by predicting what is most likely to come next in the sentence.

Popular applications like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot are built on top of large language models (LLMs) which have been trained on enormous amounts of existing text and data. These programs generate new content by recognizing patterns and predicting the next most-likely words. They are not glorified search engines basing output exclusively on existing, verified sources. When context or data are sparse, AI may “hallucinate” and fill in missing gaps with made-up material. (Read more on “Why language models hallucinate” from ChatGPT creator OpenAI.)

This is why, for example, an AI chatbot might include made up citations in a brief. There is no Day vs. Chandler Foods, Inc., 2023 WL 5178921 (E.D. S.C. Jan. 15, 2023), but at first glance it looks like a properly cited case and could easily be left in a filing.

Knowing this can help explain why so many attorneys and other legal professionals have made these kinds of mistakes.

The Bottom Line: Don’t Avoid AI, But Don’t Rely On It

The takeaway for attorneys and others in the legal field: You don’t need to avoid AI entirely but use it as a starting point only. Be sure to start with good input prompts to get good output. Most importantly, make sure to verify all cases, citations, quotations, and other output generated by AI tools.

Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group handle estate planning, business law, and commercial real estate from their offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC. Call (843) 284-1021.

 

 

Artificial Intelligence or Manufactured Intelligence? Why AI Doesn’t Replace an Attorney

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has come a long way in recent years, but as impressive as it is, it has many limitations.

AI cannot and does not replace an attorney, for one.

AI only responds to the input received. One big issue is that the way a question is asked can affect the answer given. If the question isn’t the right question asked in the right way, then the answer cannot be right, it will be biased. A good attorney removes the bias; AI cannot.

It’s easy to see how this could work for medical issues. A person might put in a list of symptoms and the AI chatbot replies with a list of possible problems and diagnoses, not taking into account the person’s medical history or other pertinent information. He or she may believe the root cause is a terrible disease, when in reality it’s an AI-generated error.

Just as AI’s powers can be misapplied in medicine, the same can happen in law.

Real-life examples. A man contacted our office concerned that his business could be found liable for wrongful termination, which could have serious consequences. An ex-employee who was not happy about being fired asked an AI chatbot about his situation, and the AI led the ex-employee to believe his firing was a “retaliatory discharge.”

The ex-employee had the AI chatbot write a letter to the employer. But it became clear that the firing was not a “retaliatory discharge,” which is a particular type of wrongful termination under South Carolina law. The AI had made several assumptions that were not true and had based its arguments on those assumptions. The employer who contacted us was relieved to find out the letter was baseless.

A similar thing happened with another employee of a different business, when a young woman upset over being fired had AI write a four-page letter threatening legal action. The letter looked great, it sounded great, but it was ersatz – four pages of legal arguments and threats built on faulty assumptions and misapplication of the law.

How could this happen? In both cases, the employees didn’t know what they didn’t know. They didn’t know enough to even ask the AI the right question about their situations, so they got wrong answers.  We don’t know exactly what prompts were used, but if one had put in something like, “I got fired from my job and I didn’t do anything wrong, is there anything I can do?” an AI chatbot could easily go from there and come up with reasons why the firing was improper and the employee had legal recourse. But it was made up.

The takeaway: Do not rely on AI to give good legal advice. It is not at the point where it can provide legal advice that’s accurate, pertinent, and unbiased.

However, you don’t have to avoid it completely. AI can be a very helpful tool when starting the research process. Just be mindful of the way you phrase questions and input you provide, as that will directly affect the answers you get back. Always verify the AI’s answers with reliable sources, too.

Call Attorney Gem McDowell

For human help with business law or estate planning in South Carolina, call Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC, today at (843) 284-1021.

Is the Trustee’s Duty to the Beneficiary or to the Trust Itself?

Does a trustee have a duty to the beneficiary or to the purpose of the trust?

These are often in alignment, and the trustee doesn’t have to choose one over the other. But sometimes they are in conflict, and that’s where issues arise.

This is not just an abstract legal concept; it has consequences in the real world. A trustee who does not live up to his or her duty under the law can get in legal trouble, as one trustee found out in last year’s South Carolina Court of Appeals case Baskin v. Walkup (2025) (find it here). The trustee was not only removed from his role but was found in contempt and ordered to pay over $100,000 in legal fees.

Before jumping into the details of the case, which should be illuminating to trustees in South Carolina, let’s see what state statute says.

Purpose or Beneficiaries: What South Carolina Law Says

Under South Carolina Code:

“Upon acceptance of a trusteeship, the trustee shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and in the interests of the beneficiaries, and in accordance with this article.” – Section 62-7-801

“A trustee shall administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries.” – Section 62-7-802(a)

“The duty of a trustee to act in good faith and in accordance with the purpose of the trust” cannot be overridden by any provision in the trust. – Section 62-7-105(b)(2)

The purpose of a trust may be to preserve family wealth and/or land; to provide for beneficiaries during their lifetimes; to fund charitable institutions; and so on. It’s advisable for the grantor/settlor of a trust to explicitly state the purpose of the trust so there’s no confusion as to its purpose. South Carolina Code Section 67-7-105(b)(3) requires that a trust “have a purpose that is lawful and possible to achieve.” It cannot be illegal or violate public policy.

A trustee must prioritize the goals of the trust and the wishes of the grantor/settlor rather than act in his or her own best interest. The trustee must also serve the beneficiaries while being careful not to go against the trust’s purpose by agreeing to a beneficiary’s requests for more funds – a common occurrence, in our experience.

But what if not making more disbursements to the beneficiary actually violates the trustee’s duty to the trust? That brings us to Baskin v. Walkup.

Baskin v. Walkup (2025) – The Background

Eldridge Baskin died in 1990, leaving a house on Summerlea Drive and its contents to his only child, then-43-year-old daughter Jane E. Baskin (Baskin) who had certain needs due to cerebral palsy.

The rest of his estate was put in a trust for Baskin’s benefit for the rest of her life. Under the terms of his will, the trust was “for the sole benefit of my daughter, Jane E. Baskin, the sole purpose of the trust created hereunder being to provide for the well[-]being of Jane E. Baskin so long as she shall live.”

Family friend William B. Walkup was named trustee, and under the terms of the trust he had broad powers to manage and invest the trust’s assets and “complete and absolute discretion” to make disbursements to Baskin.

The trust started with over $130,000 in liquid assets and a rental home worth over $40,000. Over the years, the trust’s value grew to over $500,000 under Walkup’s management, according to later testimony.

Over the years, too, the relationship between Baskin and Walkup deteriorated to the point where Baskin filed an action seeking removal of Walkup as trustee and an accounting in July 2020.

The Trial – Disagreements Over Trust Funds

The trial began in January 2021.

Baskin testified that in June 2015, against her will, Walkup moved her out of the family home she’d lived in since 1959 and into an apartment complex owned by Walkup. Walkup said that Baskin had begun falling at her home and that her being closer meant he and his daughter could (and did) provide additional support. Baskin said that the apartment was not accessible, as she was in a wheelchair at that time.

Baskin stated that she wanted to move back to the Summerlea Drive house, but Walkup wanted to move her to a nursing home. Baskin refused, and she began renovations on the house. Walkup said that expenses at the house were $14,400 per month, which would deplete the trust in three years. Expenses at the nursing home, by comparison, could be as low as $6,600 per month, depending on how much care Baskin needed.

In August 2017, Walkup sent Baskin a letter stating that the trust would stop paying insurance and electrical bills starting in October. The following May, through her attorney, Alex Weatherly, Baskin “demanded” $6,500 per month from the trust. Baskin also testified that the trust paid for just 40 hours of caregiving a week, but she needed ten hours per day. Baskin’s long-time friend Michele Moseley provided caregiving and was named/ Baskin’s POA in 2017.

The trial paused when a temporary settlement agreement was reached in which the parties agreed:

  • Walkup would remain the trustee responsible for investing and tax reporting
  • Baskin’s attorney Alex Weatherly would be appointed special trustee for Baskin’s care, and
  • Baskin would move to the Summerlea Drive house by February 1, 2021

(A handful of other legal actions followed, but they are not pertinent to this discussion; read the full opinion for details.)

The trial resumed over a year later, in August 2022. The court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL), whose role it was to represent Baskin’s best interests, testified that Baskin needed more funds from the trust for professional care and to fix up the Summerlea Drive house. She also testified that Baskin did not seem to be under undue influence from Moseley.

A trust and estate attorney, on behalf of Walkup, said it was more important for a trustee to follow the testator’s instructions than to prioritize good relations with the beneficiary. He also stated that Walkup’s financial management of the trust, which had grown considerably under his care, was “remarkable.”

Walkup, for his part, had previously testified that he was 80 years old and had known Baskin since she was 11 months old, and he agreed to be trustee because he thought he could help. He stated that the relationship with Baskin deteriorated once Moseley became more involved, which Moseley denied.

The Court Removed Walkup as Trustee

The probate court found in favor of Baskin, ordering Walkup to be removed as trustee. This decision was based on (quoting the appeals court’s opinion):

  • “best serving Baskin;
  • a substantial change in circumstances in the relationship between Walkup and Baskin, which had “deteriorated to a toxic level of litigation”; and
  • requested by Baskin, best serving the trust, and not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust.”

A suitable trustee was immediately available, noted the court, namely Weatherly, who had already been serving as special trustee.

Walkup was not only removed as trustee but was found in contempt and in breach of the temporary settlement agreement. He was ordered to pay Baskin’s attorney’s fees of $3,500 and $129,625.80.

This Appeal Followed

The appeals court affirmed. It found that the probate court made the correct decision based on Baskin’s best interests and the deterioration of the relationship between Walkup and Baskin.

South Carolina courts have authority under SC Code Section 62-7-706 to remove a trustee on certain grounds, a topic covered in a previous blog. Here, the appeals court cites subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) specifically:

(3) because of the unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries; or

(4) there has been a substantial change of circumstances or removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the court finds that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of all the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, and a suitable cotrustee or successor trustee is available”

It also quotes the following comments on this section:

“A trustee may be removed for untoward action, such as for a serious breach of trust, but the section is not so limited. A trustee may also be removed under a variety of circumstances in which the court concludes that the trustee is not best serving the interests of the beneficiaries. The term ‘interests of the beneficiaries’ means the beneficial interests as provided in the terms of the trust, not as defined by the beneficiaries.”

And:

“Friction between the trustee and beneficiaries is ordinarily not a basis for removal. However, removal might be justified if communications breakdown is caused by the trustee or appears to be incurable.”

While Walkup’s financial expertise was “apparent,” the appeals court found that “the record was replete with evidence that long-term growth rather than Baskin’s well-being was Walkup’s primary concern.” Since that objective went against the stated purpose of the trust of caring for Baskin, and the trustee’s primary duty is to carry out that purpose, Walkup was removed as trustee.

Takeaway for Trustees – Beware

Whether or not Walkup genuinely believed he was prioritizing Baskin’s well-being or was more concerned with getting great returns on the trust’s investments, this is a bad outcome for him and could be bad for trustees in future cases. We’ve previously covered another case, IN RE: Deborah Dereede Living Trust v. Karp (2019), in which a trustee was found personally liable by the same court.

These decisions are a good reminder that individual trustees put themselves at risk for what is often a thankless and low-paying job. It’s imperative that trustees understand the purpose of the trust and serve the beneficiaries’ interests in alignment with that purpose.

Get Help with Trusts and Trustee Issues

If you need help drafting, revising, or revoking a trust, or have issues with a trustee and/or beneficiary, call estate planning attorney Gem McDowell at the Gem McDowell Law Group. Gem has over 30 years of experience practicing in South Carolina, and he and his team help individuals and families create personalized wills, trusts, and comprehensive estate plans tailored to their unique circumstances. Gem is a creative problem solver who can help you fix problems, protect your interests, and avoid mistakes in the first place.

Call Gem and his team, with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC, at (843) 284-1021 to schedule your free initial consultation today.

When and How Can a Trustee Be Removed?

In South Carolina, a trustee of a trust can be removed in one of two ways: either in accordance with the terms of the trust or by a court under state trust law.

Below, we’ll look at both in turn.

A Trustee Can Be Removed Under State Law

South Carolina Code Section 62-7-706 covers the grounds for removal of a trustee by the court and who may request the removal. (Note that Title 62, Article 7 of the SC Code is based on the Uniform Trust Code, a model law adopted in some form by the majority of the states.)

Who Can Request the Removal of a Trustee?

Under subsection 62-7-706(a), “the settlor, a cotrustee, or a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by the court on its own initiative.”

On What Grounds Can a South Carolina Court Remove a Trustee?

Quoting subsection 62-7-706(b), a court can remove a trustee if:

  • “the trustee has committed a serious breach of trust;
  • lack of cooperation among cotrustees substantially impairs the administration of the trust;
  • because of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries; or
  • there has been a substantial change of circumstances or removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the court finds that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of all the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, and a suitable cotrustee or successor trustee is available.”

Here, “interests of the beneficiaries” means “the beneficial interests provided in the terms of the trust,” as defined in Section 62-7-103.

These grounds give the courts discretion in determining whether a trustee should be removed based on the facts of an individual case. To see how the law was applied in a real case recently, check out our discussion of the South Carolina Court of Appeals Baskin v. Walkup (2025) decision here on the blog.

What is the Process for Having a Trustee Removed by the Court?

The party requesting the removal starts the process by filing a petition for removal in the court with jurisdiction over the trust, usually the probate court.

Before turning to the courts, however, the party seeking to remove the trustee should first look to the trust document.

A Trustee Can Be Removed Under the Trust’s Terms

Many trusts contain provisions regarding how and when a trustee may be removed, often with steps on how to appoint a successor trustee. Removing a trustee under the trust’s terms is typically faster and less costly than going through the courts.

Who Has the Power to Remove a Trustee?

A trust may grant the power to initiate the removal of a trustee to:

  • The settlor/grantor, if still alive
  • All of the named beneficiaries or a percentage of the beneficiaries (often a majority or supermajority)
  • A trust protector, if there is one
  • Co-trustees, if there are multiple trustees

This varies by trust, so look at the terms of the trust in question.

What Are Common Grounds for the Nonjudicial Removal of a Trustee?

Many trusts allow for the nonjudicial removal of a trustee on the same grounds listed above, namely breach of trust, lack of cooperation, unfitness, etc. This allows for the trustee’s removal through an administrative process rather than needing to go through the courts.

But a grantor has flexibility when creating his or her trust and may choose to allow for the trustee’s removal on broad or narrow grounds. At one extreme end, the grantor may include language that allows certain parties to initiate the removal of a trustee “for any reason” or “without cause.”  At the other end, the grantor may only allow for the nonjudicial removal of a trustee for no reason but incapacity, for example.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both routes. If you are thinking about what kind of trustee removal provisions to include in your trust, talk through the alternatives with your attorney.

What is the Process for Removing a Trustee Under a Trust’s Terms?

The steps required to remove a trustee vary depending on the trust. Steps may include:

  • Informing the trustee and other parties in writing
  • Holding a vote (if agreement among a majority or supermajority of beneficiaries is required)
  • Selecting a successor trustee
  • Filing or recording the trustee’s resignation letter

The trustee may also need to provide an accounting and/or to turn over trust assets as needed.

Get Help with Trusts and Estate Planning from the Gem McDowell Law Group

For help drafting or revising a trust, removing a trustee, or developing a comprehensive estate plan that’s tailored to you, call estate planning attorney Gem McDowell. Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group, with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC, work with individuals and families in South Carolina to solve problems, protect their interests, and provide peace of mind. Call Gem’s office today at (843) 284-1021 to schedule your free initial consultation.

Invoice Factoring and the Associated Receivables Funding v. Classic Case

We covered invoice factoring – the good, the bad, and the predatory – in a previous blog. Below, we’ll look at one of the rare cases involving invoice factoring to make it to the high courts, the 2024 South Carolina Court of Appeals case Associated Receivables Funding, Inc. vs. Classic Industrial Services, Inc. (find it here, PDF).

Businesses who work with factors should be aware of this case because it answered two questions:

  1. Does an invoice have to be paid once it’s certified? and
  2. Is the customer bound by all the terms of the factoring agreement between the factor and the vendor?

Let’s dive in.

Background: The Associated Receivables Funding Case

As a quick reminder, in invoice factoring, there are three parties:

  • The customer who obtains products or services from the vendor
  • The vendor who provides products or services to the customer and creates an invoice, which it then sells to the factor
  • The factor who buys the unpaid invoice (receivable) from the vendor and collects payment from the customer

In this case, the parties are:

  • The customer: Classic Industrial Services (Classic)
  • The vendor: Dunlap, Inc. (Dunlap)
  • The factor: Associated Receivables Funding, Inc. (ARF)

ARF had an agreement (the Factoring Agreement) executed under South Carolina law with Dunlap in which ARF would provide Dunlap funding in exchange for receivables. Starting in spring 2014, ARF began purchasing receivables in which Classic, who had hired Dunlap as a subcontractor, was the customer.

For the next two years, the arrangement worked as it should. Classic paid ARF on at least 40 Dunlap invoices totaling over $1 million without issue. When Classic received a Dunlap invoice, it completed ARF’s “Work Completion Form” and certified the invoices with language indicating the work had been complete and the invoice was ready to be paid.

Then Classic Stopped Paying

But Classic stopped paying the Dunlap invoices starting in March 2016, believing Dunlap had not paid some of its suppliers. Classic was rightly concerned, because Dunlap’s failure to pay its own subcontractors or suppliers could lead to a mechanic’s lien that could become a big problem for Classic.

Despite knowing this was going on, Classic continued to assure ARF that everything was fine, so ARF continued advancing funds to Dunlap on new receivables. Classic also continued to certify the Dunlap invoices as before.

ARF finally learned in July 2016 that Classic was not going to pay the remaining Dunlap invoices. By the time of the trial, ARF’s outstanding invoices totaled $323,718.31.

ARF sued for repayment.

Yes, Certified Invoices Must Be Paid

In a nonjury trial, the circuit court agreed with ARF, finding Classic liable for payment under three theories:

  1. Under South Carolina Code § 36-9-607 and § 36-9-404, an “account debtor” (Classic) must pay the “assignee/secured party” (ARF) once it receives notice that the “assignor/debtor” (Dunlap) has assigned the right to payment. Classic had an obligation to pay the amount owed under its contract with Dunlap – not under the terms of the Factoring Agreement between Dunlap and ARF. And because Classic certified the invoices as valid and payable, it could not then withhold payment, even for a valid reason.
  2. Under the common law theory of negligent misrepresentation, the court found Classic liable because it knowingly made false statements to ARF, representing that the Dunlap invoices were valid and payable, and ARF relied on this information to continue advancing money to Dunlap.
  3. Similarly, under the theory of promissory estoppel, ARF relied on the false information Classic provided to continue advancing funds to Dunlap.

The appeals court agreed with the circuit court on the first and second points, declining to discuss the issue of promissory estoppel because it was not necessary.

No, the Customer Is Not Bound by All the Terms of the Factoring Agreement

Importantly, the appeals court disagreed with the circuit court on one issue: the rate of interest applied to the outstanding amount.

The circuit court had imposed a rate of 24.64%, as specified in the Factoring Agreement – but Classic was not a party to that agreement. While Classic was bound to the assignment of the right to pay in the Factoring Agreement, it was not bound to the rest of its terms. The appeals court directed the lower court to calculate the money owed with the statutory interest rate of 8.75%, rather than the higher rate of 24.64% that Classic was not bound to.

After the decision, both the Respondent (ARF) and the Appellant (Classic) requested a rehearing but were denied by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in September 2024.

A Sidebar: “Should” You Pay the Invoice?

The appeals court takes a moment to discuss the meaning of the word “should” in the context of contract language. When Classic certified the Dunlap invoices, it stated that “complete payment should be processed.” (Emphasis added)

Does “should” carry the connotation of obligation or discretion in this context? Classic argued that there was disagreement over whether the word “carries the force of a mandate.”

South Carolina courts have not yet ruled on this, notes the appeals court, but cites the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation that “should” on its own “can express the notion of requirement or obligation.”

“We find it problematic to construe ‘should’ as discretionary in the context of processing a payment for work certified to be complete and payable in the course of an ongoing business relationship,” writes the appeals court. “Instead, it seems logical to construe ‘should’ as a requirement or obligation in such a contractual context.”

For Strategic Business Advice to Help Grow and Protect Your Business, Call Gem McDowell

For help with contracts, corporate governance documents, buying and selling businesses, and much more, contact business attorney Gem McDowell. Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group, with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC, provide legal services and strategic business advice to help you protect and grow your business.

Schedule your no-obligation consultation today by calling Gem’s office at 843-284-1021 and let us know how we can help.

 

What is Invoice Factoring? The Good, The Bad, and The Predatory

When a company needs cash fast, one option is to sell its receivables in the form of unpaid invoices at a discount to a third-party business called a factor. The factor collects payment for a fee, and the business gets cash in hand without having to take on debt or put up collateral.

Sounds great, right? Factoring, or invoice factoring, can be a convenient solution to temporary cash flow issues, and many businesses have benefitted from the arrangement. But invoice factoring comes with downsides, even in the best-case scenario, and in the worst case, it can lock businesses into a predatory cycle of low high-interest borrowing and repayment. This is the hidden side of invoice factoring that doesn’t get discussed much.

Below, we’ll briefly look at how factoring works, the benefits and hidden downsides of it, and what to do before working with a factor.

Factors and Factoring: How Invoice Factoring Works

In factoring, there are three parties:

  • The customer who obtains products or services from the vendor
  • The vendor who provides products or services to the customer and creates an invoice, which it then sells to the factor
  • The factor who buys the unpaid invoice (receivable) from the vendor and collects payment from the customer

Here’s how it usually goes. The factor buys the receivable and pays the vendor an “advance” of ~70-95% of the value of the invoice. The factor then gets the payment from the customer. After the customer pays, the factor remits the remaining “reserve” to the vendor, minus a “discount fee,” which is typically 1-5%.

Is Factoring a Standard Business Service or Predatory Loan Practice? Benefits and Risks for Businesses Using a Factor

It can be either, depending on the terms of the agreement and integrity of the factor. We advise businesses we work with to be very cautious before entering into any agreement with a factor. What first seems like a convenient business service can turn out very badly.

Let’s look at the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of invoice factoring.

The Good: Benefits of Invoice Factoring to Businesses

Factoring as a service has been around for hundreds of years, and many businesses have benefitted from it to maintain cash flow without taking on any debt. It can be especially helpful for businesses with high upfront expenses and long payment cycles (e.g., 60 to 90 days), as it provides cash quick for a relatively low fee when all goes well.

Invoice factoring is also an alternative to traditional financing like a bank loan, which requires collateral. This makes it an attractive option to companies that cannot, for whatever reason, secure a traditional loan.

The Bad: Downsides of Invoice Factoring

Even when all goes well, and the factor is ethical, there can be some downsides for a business working with a factor.

The most obvious downside is the discount fee, which reduces profit margins. Working with a factor can damage customer relations, too, as it can be seen as a sign that the business is struggling. This is an even bigger problem if the factor is rude and aggressive when pursuing payment from the customer. It can deter potential investors or buyers, who may view factoring as a sign the company is struggling to maintain consistent cash flow, or because the agreement between the business and the factor is an impediment to a sale.

Factoring agreements can include restrictive terms, such as guaranteeing exclusivity (not to work with another factor) or requiring the business to sell all of its invoices from a certain customer or within a certain timeframe to the factor. Some agreements include a recourse provision for customer non-payment, which requires the business to buy the invoice back, or replace it with another, if the customer doesn’t pay. Recourse factoring can entail stricter terms, lower advances, and/or higher fees, all of which is bad for the business. It also shifts the risk back onto the business, eliminating one of the benefits of factoring.

The Ugly: The Predatory Side of Invoice Factoring

If you do an internet search for “pros and cons of invoice factoring,” you’ll find many articles and lists with the same benefits and downsides listed above. You are less likely to read about how invoice factoring can damage or destroy a business if it turns predatory. That’s why we’re writing this article; we want more businesses to know the hidden dark side of working with a factor.

Not all factors engage in these kinds of business practices. But some of them do. This is why you should be extremely cautious before signing an agreement with a factor.

Unethical factors often advertise low discount rates (1-2% or so) but charge many high fees on top, such as application fees, early termination fees, wire/ACH transfer fees, invoice processing fees, monthly maintenance fees, service fees, attorneys’ fees, and more. All these fees add up and can drastically reduce profit margins. For example, unethical factors often impose excessively high late fees for customer late payments that increase quickly with time. It’s not uncommon to see late fees that reach an effective APR of 30-50%.

Unethical factors can lock businesses in long term through restrictive terms and high termination penalties that make it difficult for the business to end its relationship with the factor. Businesses just trying to stay afloat can get caught in a cycle of predatory lending and repayment, similar to the way an individual can get caught in a cycle of debt and repayment with payday loans.

Using complex legal language to obfuscate the true terms of the agreement is another tactic we’ve seen used by unscrupulous factors. The agreements leave certain procedures and fees vague, giving the factor an advantage. For example, an agreement that doesn’t provide clear procedures and timelines on calculating a payoff amount can create a situation where the factor intentionally takes a long time to come up with the figure. By the time the business is given a payoff amount, it’s already out of date, as more fees and interest have accrued in the meantime. This is just one example of a tactic that’s technically legal, as it adheres to the terms of the agreement, but highly unethical.

Here’s the bottom line: Ethical factors want to make money by providing great service and maintaining good customer relations. Unethical factors want to make money by locking customers in no matter what it takes. They benefit more by keeping customers in a perpetual borrow-and-payback cycle with high interest rates and hidden fees rather than by providing excellent service.

Is Invoice Factoring Subject to Governmental Oversight and Regulation?

How can a factor get away with some of the business practices above?

In part, it’s because invoice factoring is a self-regulating industry. Factors are not subject to the same regulations and oversight by federal and state government bodies that banks and other loan-making financial institutions are because they are not technically making loans. Instead, the industry has various private associations that set standards and best practices.  But those standards are not legal requirements, and membership is voluntary.

Factoring transactions are governed by laws at the state level, specifically Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a set of laws that regulates commercial transactions in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. In South Carolina, Title 36, Chapter 9 of the SC Code is based on the UCC Title 9. These laws provide limited protection to businesses that work with factors and to factors themselves.

Before You Try Invoice Factoring

Know what you are doing before entering into an agreement with a factor.

  1. Plan for invoice factoring to be temporary. Do not get trapped long term. Think of invoice factoring as a convenient but temporary solution for cash flow. It’s not a viable alternative to building cash reserves in your business for long-term growth and sustainability.
  2. Research the factor. If possible, get a positive referral from someone you know and trust whose business has similar needs.
  3. Read the terms closely before signing. Look for recourse provisions, extra fees like those listed above, restrictive terms, interest rates, and so on. (Having said this, even a close reading may not be enough to know what working with the factor will be like.)
  4. Speak to an attorney first on invoice factoring. Get advice from a business attorney who has advised businesses working with unethical factors. He or she can help you understand a factoring agreement before signing and/or discuss alternatives to keep your business going. Find someone in your state; if you’re in South Carolina, call Gem McDowell (see below).
  5. Seek alternative financing through traditional and/or private lenders. If you are in need of a temporary solution for cash flow, consider alternatives to invoice factoring like reducing expenses, selling assets, or securing a traditional loan from an institution with more oversight and regulations that protect you.

For Contracts, Business Law, and Strategic Advice to Grow and Protect Your Business, Call Gem McDowell

Contracts are often easy to sign but hard to get out of. Do you know exactly what you’re agreeing to?

Before entering into a contract with a factor, or any other contract, have it looked at by an experienced business attorney like Gem McDowell. With nearly 35 years of experiencing helping South Carolina business owners and professionals, he knows how to protect your interests and avoid mistakes so your business can grow and thrive.

For everything from contracts and corporate governance documents, to buying and selling businesses, to strategic advice to avoid mistakes and help your business thrive, Gem is here for you. Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC are here for you – call 843-284-1021 today to schedule your free consultation.

When You Can’t Sell Your Own Property: ROFRs and the Power of Alienation

Is a right of first refusal (ROFR) always a good thing?

No. Many property owners have found out through bitter experience that a ROFR granting another party first dibs to purchase the property can become a big hindrance.

We’ve covered the pros and cons of granting a ROFR to a potential buyer in a previous blog. One big potential drawback for the property owner/potential seller is unreasonable restraint on his or her “power of alienation,” that is, the property owner’s power to freely dispose of the property through sale or transfer.

This was the core issue in the South Carolina Court of Appeals case Crescent Homes SC, LLC v. CJN, LLC (2024) (read it here), which we’ll go into below. It’s an important case that reinforces the need for clear, precise terms for an enforceable ROFR and demonstrates just what can happen when an ROFR becomes an “unreasonable” restraint.

Restraint on the Power of Alienation: Brief Background of the Crescent Case

The Agreement: Develop and Build Lots for Homes

CJN, LLC bought and developed property. Crescent Homes, LLC was a homebuilder.

In 2018, the two parties entered into an agreement (the Agreement) under which CJN would develop 32 lots in Greenville County and sell them to Crescent to build homes on. This was referred to as “Phase 1.” In “Phase 2,” aka “Future Phase,” the plan was for CJN to develop more lots. Crescent would have the right of first refusal to buy those lots.

The Agreement did not contain any specifics on the ROFR, such as price or procedure, and only stated that “A memorandum of such right of first refusal in a form reasonabl[y] acceptable to the Parties will be recorded in the public records of Greenville County at the Initial Closing.” Such a memorandum was never written or recorded with the County, as the parties could not agree on terms.

Third-Party Offers and Crescent’s Response

The project moved slowly, and while Phase 1 was still in progress, CJN received two separate offers to purchase the Phase 2 property. One was for $775,000 in June 2020, and the other was for $1.25 million in April 2021.

Crescent did not accept or refuse either offer. Crescent argued that it was under no obligation to accept or refuse the first offer, as it was made before the Initial Closing (which took place soon after in August 2020). In response to the second offer, Crescent said the ROFR was not triggered because it was not a bona fide offer. Crescent also filed lis pendens (public notice of a lawsuit affecting real property) after each offer.

Still, CJN attempted to find a buyer, listing the property on MLS and the commercial property listing website Costar in May 2021.

Legal Proceedings in Crescent

For details on the various complaints, motions, and lawsuits filed in this case starting in 2019, refer to the court’s opinion. Here we’ll cover only what’s pertinent to our discussion.

In 2021, CJN sought a declaration that the ROFR was void and unenforceable. The master denied Crescent’s motion to dismiss and issued an order determining the ROFR was unenforceable as it constituted an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of an interest in land.

This appeal followed.

Issue 1: Ripeness

First the appeals court addresses the issue of ripeness, or whether the matter was ready to be litigated when the master made his decision.

Crescent argued that the master erred in ruling on the enforceability of the ROFR, as the matter was not yet “ripe” since there were no pending offers on the Phase 2 property at the time. Crescent argued that since the two previous offers had been withdrawn before trial, there was no justiciable controversy.

The appeals court disagreed.

A justiciable controversy must be real and concrete, not hypothetical. The two offers on the Phase 2 Property were real, even if they were no longer pending at the time Crescent took legal action. The court cites previous cases, including Peoples Federal (1989), that found an offer does not need to be pending, saying, “Once a bona fide offer has been made the matter is ripe.” Additionally, CJN listed the property online for sale, which the court says can be interpreted as an offer for sale.

Issue 2: Unreasonable Restraint on Alienation

Next, the appeals court address the main issue: Did Crescent’s failure to either exercise or refuse the ROFR constitute an unreasonable restraint on CJN’s power of alienation?

A restraint on alienation does not automatically make a ROFR void; the question is whether such a restraint is “reasonable” or “unreasonable.” The appeals court cites Clarke v. Fine Housing, Inc. (2023) (read a summary on our blog here) in which the SC Supreme Court examined three factors:

  1. The clarity of what is encumbered;
  2. The price; and
  3. The procedures to exercise the right

While Crescent argued that the lack of specific terms meant the ROFR was not an unreasonable restraint, the exact opposite is true. Looking again at the three factors:

  1. Clarity of encumbrance: The ROFR was not clear about what property it encumbered, as it only mentioned “lots,” but the “lots” did not yet exist
  2. Price: The ROFR contained no specifics on price or how to arrive at a price
  3. Procedures: The ROFR contained no specifics on procedures

The appeals court affirmed the master’s decision, finding that all three factors support the conclusion that the ROFR did constitute an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

Issue 3: Evidence of the Parties’ Conduct and Intent

Finally, the court considers Crescent’s argument regarding the parties’ conduct and intent. Crescent argued that the master should have looked beyond the Agreement itself to the parties’ conduct to supply the missing terms of the ROFR. Even if those terms were not written down on paper, Crescent argues that both parties agreed on some of the basic terms of the ROFR, and the master should have considered that.

The appeals court did not find this argument valid and disagreed with Crescent, again affirming the master’s finding.

Do You Know What You’re Agreeing To?

The ruling is great news for CJN, who can now sell the property on the free market or otherwise dispose of it without restraint. However, CJN could have avoided all the years, stress, and expense of litigation by either 1. not including a ROFR in their agreement with Crescent at all, or 2. drafting a clear, enforceable ROFR in the first place.

Whether you’re the property owner or the potential buyer, you need someone looking out for your best interests with extensive experience. Gem McDowell has over 30 years practicing law in South Carolina and has handled everything from drafting simple deeds to handling multi-million-dollar commercial real estate transactions. He and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group can help you draft an agreement that’s favorable to you, or review and explain an existing agreement before you sign, and much more.

Schedule your free consultation today by calling (843) 284-1021.

Seller Beware: Think Twice Before Granting the Right of First Refusal (ROFR)

Is it smart to include a right of first refusal (ROFR) clause in a contract? Not always.

If you’re the property owner/potential seller, think twice before including a ROFR in your contract. The ROFR tends to favor the potential buyer while restraining the seller.

Below, we’ll look at what you, as a property owner, should know about the pros and cons of ROFRs, and what makes a ROFR enforceable in South Carolina.

Pros and Cons of the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) for Property Owners/Sellers

We’ve previously covered the basics of the right of first refusal in South Carolina and some of the pros and cons of including one in an agreement. Here’s a quick recap:

The upsides of a ROFR are clear for potential buyers. They get “first dibs” on buying property when it comes up for sale, giving them the opportunity but not the obligation to purchase it.

Property owners, instead, have the obligation to offer the property to the ROFR holder first* without the guarantee the sale will go through, and with a strong possibility that if it does, the final sales price will be lower than what could have been gotten on the free market. For these reasons, a property owner should not automatically agree to a ROFR clause.

* Note that South Carolina courts in recent decisions have not differentiated between the “right of first refusal” and “right of first offer,” and the discussion of ROFR here also includes rights typical of the ROFO.  

Here are primary pros and cons from the property owner’s perspective:

Pros:

  • Having a pre-agreed terms and a potential buyer already lined up could save property owner time, money, and effort when it comes time to sell
  • Terms of the ROFR could ensure the property does not sell below market value

Cons:

  • Keeps property owner locked into terms that were likely determined months or years ago, which may no longer be favorable
  • Often deters third-party bids, which can result in a lower final sales price
  • Can restrain the owner from selling or disposing of the property entirely

To this last point: A ROFR can act as an unreasonable restraint on the property owner’s “power of alienation” (aka right of alienation), or ability to freely dispose of the property, effectively preventing its sale or transfer altogether. This is the core issue in the 2024 SC Court of Appeals case Crescent Homes SC, LLC v. CJN, LLC. Read more about that case and the court’s decision here on our blog.

Enforceability of Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Clauses in South Carolina

South Carolina courts have routinely ruled that a ROFR is enforceable only when drafted with clear, precise terms that impose reasonable restraints on all parties. In the 2023 case Clarke v. Fine Housing, Inc., the SC Supreme Court laid out criteria for an enforceable ROFR.

An enforceable ROFR should include:

  1. Clear description of the property being encumbered by the right
  2. Terms on price
    • A fixed-dollar sales price, OR
    • A clear formula to determine a sales price
  3. Terms on procedure
    • What event triggers the ROFR
    • How notice is given
    • How long the ROFR holder has to respond
    • What happens if the ROFR holder declines to exercise the right
    • The duration of the right

A few things to consider about the duration of the right:

We rarely set forth ROFRs in contracts we draft for our clients here in our practice, but when we do, we make the price extremely clear and always include an expiration date and time, e.g., “This right expires at 11:50 pm ET on December 31, 2026.” An earlier expiration date is generally better for the property owner/potential seller.

If you are the potential buyer, a later expiration date – or none at all – is better for you. Now you can include a ROFR of “perpetual” duration, since the Supreme Court of South Carolina’s January 2026 ruling in the Spring Valley Interests case has conclusively affirmed that the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) does not apply to nondonative commercial transfers in South Carolina. This must be explicitly stated in the terms of the agreement for it to be enforceable. (Read more about the Spring Valley case and the RAP here on our blog.) If you are the property owner/potential seller, it’s in your best interest to avoid granting such a right to another party.

Should You Skip the Right of First Refusal Altogether?

If you are the potential buyer, you may benefit from agreeing to a ROFR with favorable terms on price and procedure.

But if you’re the property owner/potential seller, you should strongly consider skipping it, for all the reasons explained above. The benefits, which are small and uncertain to begin with, don’t outweigh the potential downsides, in our experience. If you do want or need to include a ROFR, make sure it’s drafted by an experienced corporate and commercial real estate attorney like Gem McDowell.

For help drafting, revising, or reviewing corporate and commercial real estate documents, call Gem. Gem help business professionals grow their businesses, avoid mistakes, and protect their interests. Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group serve business owners and professionals across the state from offices in Myrtle Beach and Mount Pleasant, SC. Call today at 843-248-1021 to schedule your free consultation.

What is the “Heirs’ Property Tax Relief Act”? Helping Clear Titles

A new bill to help owners of heirs’ property in South Carolina resolve title issues was signed into law by Gov. McMaster on May 15, 2026. H. 4477 passed unanimously in both the S.C. Senate and the House within the last month and was ratified on May 14.

The widespread support for this bill reflects the growing recognition that heirs’ property – property jointly owned by multiple descendants of the original property owner – is a longstanding problem in South Carolina. The lack of a clear title for heirs’ property frequently leads to both legal complications and family conflict.

Below, we’ll look at what the bill says and does, why heirs’ property is a problem, and whether this legislation can fix it.

What the “Heirs’ Property Tax Relief Act” Does

The “Heirs’ Property Tax Relief Act,” as it’s known, is intended to streamline the process and reduce the financial burden on owners seeking to clear a property’s title.

Beginning with the 2026 tax year, transfers of qualified property to qualified family members will not be considered an “assessable transfer of interest,” and no formal appraisal will be required. Previously, such a transfer would trigger a property appraisal, which could increase the owners’ tax burden.

The Act amends South Carolina Code Section 12-37-3150 and includes the following definitions in subsection (B)(16):

(b)(i) “Heirs’ property” means real property owned by one or more individuals as tenants in common, which was inherited from a relative and for which no formal probate or recorded conveyance transferred clear title to the current owners.

(b)(ii) “Qualified family member” means a person related to the prior owner by blood, marriage, or adoption including, but not limited to, a spouse, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle, cousin, or those identified as heir owners by a court of competent jurisdiction.

and the following requirements:

(d) The transfer described in this item is not considered an assessable transfer of interest only if the qualified family members submit affidavits to the county assessor certifying under penalty of perjury that:

  • The property qualifies as heirs’ property
  • The transfer is between qualified family members, and
  • The transfer is for the purpose of clearing title

Once the title is cleared, the property is no longer considered heirs’ property.

Why Heirs’ Property Is a Problem – Consequences of a Cloud on Title

Heirs’ property is created when a property owner dies and the ownership changes but those changes are not properly recorded with the county. It’s often the result of a property owner dying intestate – without a will – but it can also happen if an existing will is not probated. In either case, inheritance is then determined by state law.

Under state intestacy laws, the decedent’s children collectively inherit either 50% of the property (with the other 50% going to the surviving spouse) or 100% of the property (if there’s no surviving spouse). They now own the property in equal, fractional amount as tenants in common. If the situation isn’t addressed, the property can end up with multiple owners with varying ownership interests from different generations.

When changes in ownership are not properly recorded with the county, the result is a “cloud on title,” the legal term for a title with encumbrances or claims. Property without a clear title is:

  • Difficult or impossible to sell
  • Unable to get or refinance a mortgage or other home-backed loans
  • Ineligible for government assistance like FEMA aid
  • Expensive and time-consuming to fix later on

Those are just some of the legal and financial issues. Heirs’ property often causes family conflict, as well, if there’s no consensus on whether to keep or sell the property, who should live there, who should pay property taxes and upkeep, and so on. As a joint tenant, one owner may sell or transfer his or her fractional interest without the approval of the other tenants, and/or may file for partition, which can lead to a court-ordered sale of the home.

The situation leaves the owners of heirs’ property uniquely vulnerable to financial liabilities, forced tax sales, court-ordered partition, exploitation from speculators, and other risks. The only remedy is to clear the title.

Will This Act Help?

We hope so. In our experience, many heirs’ property owners don’t clear the title because they don’t realize there’s a problem in the first place, and this act doesn’t address that underlying issue. But this act does address an administrative barrier that could hinder heirs’ property owners who have already decided to clear the title, which could help many South Carolina families.

What To Do Now – Clear the Title and Plan Ahead

Heirs’ property is one of the most common results of what we call Family Malpractice™. With some planning ahead and basic understanding of the probate process, you can avoid burdening your descendants with heirs’ property in the future.

Whether you’re dealing with heirs’ property yourself or you want to avoid creating the problem for your descendants, call Gem at the Gem McDowell Law Group with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC. Gem and his team handle probate matters and help individuals and families develop personalized wills and estate plans tailored to their unique circumstances. Gem’s also a problem solver who understands how family disputes can complicate inheritance and estate planning, and his goal is to help resolve the legal issues while maintaining good family relationships.

Call today to schedule your free, no-obligation consultation at (843) 284-1021.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Losing Your Home with One Signature: Home Title Fraud on the Rise and What You Can Do

If you’re like most Americans, your home is your single most valuable asset. Yet you could lose it with just one signature.

This is what happened to Gloria Ormand-Ward, the Appellant in the Court of Appeals of South Carolina case Ormand-Ward v. Litt (2025) (find the PDF here).

Below, we’ll look at how one South Carolina woman lost her home, how it’s possible, and some resources and steps to battle home title fraud (aka deed fraud or home title theft) – including free property recording alerts available in several South Carolina counties.

How an HOA Lien Led to Home Deed Fraud: Ormand-Ward v. Litt

About to Lose Her Home Over Unpaid HOA Assessments

Gloria Ormand-Ward lived in a home (Home) subject to covenants of a homeowner’s association (HOA). In January 2019, her HOA placed a lien against the Home since she failed to pay assessments due. In September 2020, the HOA filed a foreclosure action, seeking $5,526.50 in assessments, late fees, and legal fees.

(Crazy at it may seem, in South Carolina, an HOA can foreclose on a home over outstanding debts, and some HOAs have made quite a good income from doing so. Read more about this here on our blog.)

Getting “Help”

Facing the loss of her house to foreclosure, Ormand-Ward agreed to get help from a man who called himself David Litt and his company Homedebone, LLC (Homedebone). He told her he could handle the situation to prevent her home from being foreclosed on.

In February 2021, Ormand-Ward “purportedly” signed a warranty deed prepared by Homedebone, which transferred the Home to the company for $100. The deed was registered with Horry County soon after. Ormand-Ward also “purportedly” signed a Power of Attorney that appointed Litt as her attorney-in-fact.

The HOA was paid and satisfied. It released the lien and dismissed the foreclosure action.

Suddenly Homeless

This should have been great news for Ormand-Ward – except she didn’t realize, she says, that she had signed away her home. Litt had deceived her.

Homedebone sold the Home to a third party for $260,000 in March 2021, and Ormand-Ward was made to leave. Ormand-Ward, in her late 70s at the time, lived in her vehicle and in homeless shelters over the next few months before being hospitalized due to declining health. She was eventually moved to a long-term care facility.

In November 2021, she brought legal action against Litt and several other defendants. The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case with respect to one of the defendants, the Chicago Title Insurance Company, but the case with the remaining defendants is still pending.

How This Could Happen – and What Happens Next

Would you ever fall for such a scheme? Maybe you assume it could never happen to you. But you might be surprised at just how easy it is to transfer a home’s title through forgery (when signatures or documents are falsified) or fraud (when deception is used to get a signed deed). Here are just a few legal and procedural factors that may play a part:

  • No attorney required. A homeowner might reasonably believe that a home could only be sold or transferred with the assistance of an attorney, since South Carolina requires an attorney for real estate closings. But attorneys are not required to draft, review, or approve the signing of a deed.
  • The county does not verify the transfer. The register of deeds or county clerk will record the deed as long as a deed adheres to South Carolina’s legal requirements (such as notarization and witness signatures). It is not part of the job to verify that the conveyance is legitimate.
  • Failing to read and/or understand contracts. Many people don’t read what they are signing or fully understand what they are agreeing to. Even with a close reading, someone may not fully appreciate the consequences of signing something like a power of attorney.
  • Online signature. The appeals court notes that Ormand-Ward signed both the deed and the power of attorney digitally. DocuSign and similar services make it extremely easy to “sign” by typing in your name without reading everything in the agreement.

Can you get your home back after home title theft? It depends in part on whether the deed was the result of forgery or fraud and whether the property has since been conveyed to a bona fide third party. In Ormand-Ward’s case, since she “purportedly” (to use the appeals court’s word) signed the deed herself and the home was later conveyed to a third party who presumably didn’t know about the fraud, she may not be able to get her home back. (Again, the current case did not resolve this issue.)

No matter the situation, a property owner who discovers issues with a home title should contact a real estate lawyer with experience in home deed theft cases.

Home Title Theft – What You Can Do, and Resources

Home title fraud is not as common as some title monitoring companies would have you believe, but it is on the rise, according to the Boston Division of the FBI. Here are some resources and to-dos that can help protect yourself and your home.

Pay debts to avoid foreclosure. A property owner facing foreclosure is more likely to be targeted in deed fraud schemes, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). So pay your taxes, mortgage, assessments, fees, dues, and other debts to avoid impending foreclosure in the first place.

If you’re already facing foreclosure, or are concerned you will soon, check out HUD’s online resources to help homeowners avoid foreclosure or call 1-888-995-HOPE (4673) to be connected to a HUD-approved housing counselor.

Seek legal advice. Contact an attorney if you’ve discovered issues with your home title, if you’re facing foreclosure, or if you’re asked to sign something, especially if it’s to “avoid foreclosure,” “fix your taxes,” “help with the HOA,” “qualify for assistance,” or something similar. An hour of an attorney’s time could be well worth the cost if it keeps you from making a life-changing mistake.

If an attorney is out of your budget, look for free or low-cost programs and resources. Here are some resources in South Carolina:

  • The South Carolina Department on Aging provides funds for legal assistance to qualifying individuals aged 60 and older. Toll-free number: 1-800-868-9095
  • South Carolina Legal Services is a non-profit offering legal advice, assistance, and representation to individuals based on eligibility and type of legal issue. Toll-free number: 1-888-346-5592
  • Find resources through the South Carolina Bar including the low-cost Lawyer Referral Service (phone number: 1-803-799-7100) and the online program Free Legal Answers.
  • The South Carolina Legal Resource Finder is an online tool that determines eligibility for programs based on life circumstances and legal situations

Say “I’ll have my attorney look at it.” You can say this anytime someone asks you to sign something, even if you don’t have an attorney and don’t intend on using one. Fraudsters don’t want attorneys involved; if you use this line and get pushback, that’s a red flag that something’s not right.

Monitor your home title. Keeping an eye on your home title can’t prevent transfer due to forgery, but it can help you catch any issue early on so you can take action. Several companies offer home title monitoring for a monthly or yearly fee, often along with other services. Be aware that it’s not possible to “lock” or “freeze” a title to prevent title transfer from occurring; the best these services can do is alert you quickly.

Or monitor your own title for free anytime. Go to the website of your county’s Register of Deeds (or Clerk of Court, in some counties) and search the property records.

Sign up for free automatic alerts. Several counties in South Carolina now offer a FREE automatic alert system that emails you if and when something associated with your name occurs, such as a transfer of your home’s title.

Counties not listed here don’t have a similar system at the time of this writing, but that could change in the future. Check back with your county to see if the service is added later.

Legal Advice from Experienced Business and Real Estate Attorney Gem McDowell

For legal help and strategic advice in South Carolina, call Gem McDowell. Gem helps individuals and businesses create and review contracts, solve problems, and avoid mistakes. Contact Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group, with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC, to schedule your free consultation today by calling 843-284-1021.

 

What Are “Hot Powers”? Express Powers in a Power of Attorney

In a power of attorney (POA), “hot powers” are powers that must be explicitly granted by the principal to the agent. They differ from powers that are implied.

“Hot Powers” Under the UPOAA

Under § 201 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (UPOAA), a model law, the agent must be expressly granted the power to:

  1. Create, amend, revoke, or terminate an inter vivos trust.
  2. Make a gift.
  3. Create or change rights of survivorship.
  4. Create or change a beneficiary designation.
  5. Delegate authority granted under the power of attorney.
  6. Waive the principal’s right to be a beneficiary of a joint and survivor annuity, including a survivor benefit under a retirement plan.
  7. Exercise fiduciary powers that the principal has authority to delegate.
  8. Disclaim property, including a power of appointment.
  9. Exercise authority over the content of electronic communications, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 2510(12), sent or received by the principal.

As of 2026, the majority of states and Washington, D.C. have adopted a version of the UPOAA. Check what the hot powers are in your state, as they may differ somewhat from those in the UPOAA model law. Let’s look at the statute in South Carolina as an example.

“Hot Powers” Under South Carolina POA Laws

South Carolina adopted a modified version of the UPOAA in 2017. Under SC Code § 62-8-201, the first eight powers are the same as those above in the model law; the final four are:

  1. Access a safe deposit box or vault leased by the principal;
  2. Exercise a power of appointment in favor of someone other than the principal;
  3. Reject, renounce, disclaim, release, or consent to a reduction in or modification o f a share in or payment from an estate, trust, or other beneficial interest; or
  4. Deal with commodity futures contracts and call or put options on stocks or stock indexes.

You might have noticed that exercising authority over the content of electronic communications – the #9 hot power in the model UPOAA law – is missing from the South Carolina statute. While it’s not considered a hot power, that does not mean that the power is implied and automatic.  If you, as a principal, want to grant this power to your agent, speak with your attorney about including the power explicitly in your POA.

Drafting, Revising, and Reviewing POAs and Other Estate Planning Documents

It doesn’t matter what kind of POA – general or limited/specific, and durable, non-durable, or springing – if you want an agent to have any of those powers listed above, you must list them in the POA expressly.

For help with drafting, revising, or reviewing powers of attorney and other estate planning documents like wills and trusts, call estate planning attorney Gem McDowell. Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group help individuals and families in South Carolina with customized wills and comprehensive estate plans. An estate plan tailored to you and your family’s unique situation can help protect your assets, give you peace of mind, and avoid family squabbles and other problems in the future.

The Gem McDowell Law Group has locations in Myrtle Beach and Mount Pleasant, SC. Schedule a free consultation with Gem by calling 843-284-1021.

 

Go to Top