South Carolina HOA Governing Statute
South Carolina HOA Governing Statute
Overview — How HOAs are governed in South Carolina
South Carolina governs community associations through two parallel statutes rather than a single unified code. Condominiums fall under the Horizontal Property Act. Non-condominium associations operate under the Homeowners Association Act, which took effect May 17, 2018.1,2
The Horizontal Property Act, S.C. Code § 27-31-10 et seq., is the older statute. It governs what South Carolina law calls horizontal property regimes — condominiums — from creation through operation.1 The Homeowners Association Act, S.C. Code § 27-30-110 et seq., was enacted as Act 245 of 2018 and covers non-condominium planned communities.2
The 2018 Act works differently from a full common-interest community code. It narrows its focus to document recording, transparency, and complaint handling — not a comprehensive governance framework. Its central recurring requirement: record governing documents and annual rules updates with the county, or those rules lose their legal force.3
South Carolina has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. Both statutes are bespoke, and neither carries UCIOA features such as mandatory owner budget ratification. Where the HOA Act's disclosure and recording rules leave off, the recorded declaration and South Carolina common law take over — making this a recently modernized, but still substantially contract-driven, jurisdiction for community associations.4
The statutory framework
The South Carolina Horizontal Property Act
The South Carolina Horizontal Property Act, S.C. Code § 27-31-10 et seq., governs condominiums — called horizontal property regimes under state law — from creation through daily operations.1 An owner creates a regime by recording a master deed (or master lease) that formally submits the property to the Act, as § 27-31-30 requires.5 That master deed must contain the particulars listed in § 27-31-100: descriptions of the individual units (called apartments), the common elements, and each unit's percentage interest in those elements.6
The Act defines key terms in § 27-31-20, including apartment, co-owner, common elements, and limited common elements. Administration runs through a council of co-owners operating under bylaws required by §§ 27-31-150 and 27-31-160; co-owners may also incorporate under § 27-31-90. The Act addresses shared expenses in § 27-31-190, assessment liens in § 27-31-210, insurance in § 27-31-240, and the council's right of access in § 27-31-280.7
The Act supplies the structural baseline. The master deed and bylaws fill in the substantive governance details — CC&Rs and bylaws supplement what the statute provides rather than replace it.1
Pre-2018 condominium and covenant case law remains good law in South Carolina. In Queen's Grant II Horizontal Property Regime v. Greenwood Development Corp., 368 S.C. 342, 628 S.E.2d 902 (Ct. App. 2006), the Court of Appeals held that a developer may reserve the right to amend restrictive covenants — but only if five conditions are satisfied: the right must appear unambiguously in the original declaration; the developer must hold a sufficient property interest; the developer must strictly follow the amendment procedure; the developer must provide notice in strict accordance with the declaration; and the amended covenants must not be unreasonable, indefinite, or contrary to public policy.8 Courts still cite that framework in current covenant disputes. In Heatley v. Mariner's Cay, Op. No. 6131 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2026) (published), the Court of Appeals held void a declarant's amendment that converted vested common elements into units, both under the master deed's own terms and independently under § 27-31-70, and held that the owners' years of silence did not amount to acquiescence.9,10 In Taylor v. Gill Living Trust, Unpublished Op. No. 2025-UP-181 (S.C. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), by contrast, a court used § 33-31-160 of the Nonprofit Corporation Act to dispense with a unanimity requirement for an incorporated regime, and the amendment passed at 52.183%; the opinion has no precedential value and sits in tension with Heatley, so how the two fit together is unresolved.11,12
The South Carolina Homeowners Association Act
The South Carolina Homeowners Association Act, S.C. Code § 27-30-110 et seq., was enacted as Act 245 of 2018 (H.3886) and took effect May 17, 2018 — the first South Carolina statute to directly regulate non-condominium HOAs.13 The Act defines homeowners associations in § 27-30-120 as entities managing a planned community or horizontal property regime under a declaration requiring owners to pay assessments. A 2019 technical amendment (Act 66 of 2019) made minor changes to those definitions.14
The Act builds its structure around disclosure, transparency, and recording. Substantive governance — fining procedures, election rules, detailed meeting requirements — lies outside its scope.3
Section 27-30-130 is the Act's core provision. It ties enforceability to recording: an association must file its governing documents — declaration, master deeds, bylaws, and amendments — in the county clerk of court's, Register of Mesne Conveyance's, or register of deeds office. Rules and regulations must reach the recorder by January tenth of each year following adoption or amendment to remain enforceable. Associations that existed on the effective date had to record by January tenth of the following year. An unrecorded document cannot be enforced against owners.3
The Act also requires at least 48 hours' advance notice before a board vote to increase the annual budget under § 27-30-140 — though that requirement does not apply to associations incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Act.15 Section 27-30-150 extends the Nonprofit Corporation Act's document-access provisions to HOAs not otherwise subject to that Act. Section 27-30-160 grants magistrates court concurrent jurisdiction over qualifying monetary disputes.16
A companion article established a Department of Consumer Affairs complaint-tracking service under §§ 27-30-310 through 27-30-340. The statute is explicit: the Department cannot promulgate governance regulations or arbitrate disputes. It collects and publishes complaint data — nothing more.17 Its report published February 4, 2026 counted 452 included complaints against 339 associations and management companies, raising 1,104 concerns (up 30%), led by covenant enforcement (16.8%), maintenance (11.7%), and ignored records requests (9.5%); the Department stated that it cannot compel participation, require an outcome, or arbitrate, and none of its four recommendations to the General Assembly was enacted.18
The Act does not impose UCIOA-style budget ratification, detailed election procedures, or owner records-inspection rights comparable to California's Davis-Stirling Act or Florida Chapter 720. A separate seller-disclosure companion — § 27-50-40 — requires sellers to disclose whether a property is subject to HOA governance on the residential property condition disclosure statement.19
The role of CC&Rs, corporate law, and the pre-2018 framework
For governance questions outside the HOA Act's disclosure and recording provisions, South Carolina remains substantively CC&R-primary. Assessment authority, fining, elections, architectural-standards enforcement, and board procedures all derive from the recorded declaration and bylaws — not from a comprehensive statute.4
Because most South Carolina HOAs incorporate as nonprofits, the South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act of 1994, S.C. Code § 33-31-101 et seq., supplies corporate governance defaults: meeting procedures, quorums, director duties, and records access.20 That incorporation act also settles a federal question many boards still ask about: because a South Carolina nonprofit corporation comes into existence by filing with the Secretary of State, it is a "domestic entity" under the current federal beneficial-ownership reporting rule and owes no BOI report to FinCEN, a status HOA Weekly's federal Corporate Transparency Act coverage tracks in detail.21 FinCEN's final rule, published and effective August 14, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 52508), makes that exemption permanent for domestic entities, and its preamble names associations directly: the blanket exemption “obviates any need to create additional exemptions applicable to subcategories of U.S. entities, such as homeowners' associations.”22 Director conduct is also limited by the Act's immunity provision: in Griffin v. Giovino, Op. No. 6117 (S.C. Ct. App. July 16, 2025) (published), the court held that § 33-31-834 director immunity is removed for willful conduct and affirmed a $160,000 punitive award apportioned among four directors, over a partial dissent by Judge Geathers.23,24
Pre-2018 case law interpreting restrictive covenants remains good law. South Carolina courts construe ambiguous restrictive covenants with all doubts resolved in favor of the free use of the property — a durable canon that applies to current disputes.25 Covenants also bind through the recorded chain of title: in Oak Forest v. Dennison, Unpublished Op. No. 2025-UP-443 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2025), an owner was bound by covenants recorded in his chain of title and an incorporated plat even though his own deed never named them.26
The practical order of precedence runs from the HOA Act's disclosure and recording provisions (for non-condos) and the Horizontal Property Act (for condos) at the top, then the recorded declaration or CC&Rs, then bylaws, then board-adopted rules. Common-law contract and property doctrine govern interpretation throughout, and courts treat covenants as contracts among owners.4
Compliance obligations created by the statutory framework
Governance obligations
The Horizontal Property Act sets mandatory governance baselines for condominiums: bylaws governing administration under §§ 27-31-150 and 27-31-160, and record-keeping of receipts and expenditures under § 27-31-180. The master deed supplements these requirements.27
For non-condominium HOAs, the HOA Act imposes few substantive governance mandates. Board procedures, elections, and fining authority derive from the recorded declaration and — for nonprofit HOAs — from the Nonprofit Corporation Act, § 33-31-101 et seq.4,20
Act 68 of 2023 (H.4049), effective May 19, 2023, amended the Nonprofit Corporation Act and business corporation provisions to authorize remote and virtual membership meetings and electronic voting at the board's discretion.28 South Carolina does not require statewide community association manager licensing.29
Financial obligations
For condominiums, the Horizontal Property Act requires co-owners to share common expenses under § 27-31-190 and authorizes assessment liens enforceable by foreclosure in the manner of a mortgage under § 27-31-210. These provisions are statutory and operate alongside the master deed.30
For non-condominium HOAs, assessment authority, reserves, and budgeting derive from the recorded declaration rather than from the HOA Act.4 The Act's only direct financial mandate is the 48-hour advance notice before a budget increase under § 27-30-140 — a requirement that does not apply to HOAs incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Act.15 South Carolina has no statutory reserve-funding mandate.
Disclosure obligations
Disclosure and recording are the core of the HOA Act. Under § 27-30-130, a non-condominium HOA's governing documents must be recorded with the county to be enforceable, and rules and regulations must be recorded by January tenth of each year following adoption or amendment to remain enforceable. The January tenth deadline recurs every year for rules adopted or amended in the prior year — an unrecorded document cannot be enforced against owners. Associations must also make rules accessible to members on request or by posting in a common area or on a maintained website.3 Whether the “January tenth of each year” language requires unchanged rules to be re-recorded every year, rather than once after adoption or amendment, is unresolved: no South Carolina court has construed § 27-30-130(B)(2).31 S. 903, which passed the Senate 39-0 on April 16, 2026 and died in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, would have changed “each” to “the,” extended the January tenth deadline to all governing documents, and reversed § 27-30-130(D)'s exemption from witnessing and acknowledgment as of January 1, 2027; none of that was enacted.32,33
For nonprofit HOAs, owners may inspect the budget and membership list under Nonprofit Corporation Act provisions incorporated by § 27-30-150.16 Separately, § 27-50-40 requires sellers to disclose on the residential property condition disclosure statement whether a property is governed by an HOA.19 For condominiums, the Horizontal Property Act requires master deed recording under §§ 27-31-30 and 27-31-100.5
Dispute resolution obligations
The HOA Act grants magistrates court concurrent jurisdiction over monetary disputes that meet the jurisdictional threshold under § 27-30-160.16 The Act does not mandate internal dispute-resolution procedures, alternative dispute resolution, or a statutory notice-and-hearing process before fining. Where those mechanisms exist, they come from the recorded declaration or common law.4
The Department of Consumer Affairs collects and publishes complaint data under § 27-30-340 but cannot adjudicate disputes.17 For condominium assessment-lien disputes, the Horizontal Property Act provides for judicial foreclosure under § 27-31-210.30
South Carolina's recent legislative and judicial activity
Recent bills
Two recently enacted laws reshaped South Carolina associations: one authorized virtual meetings and electronic voting, and one reformed how recorded vendor agreements attach to land.
H.4049 · Act 68 of 2023 · 2023–2024 Regular Session
The South Carolina General Assembly authorized community associations to hold membership meetings remotely and conduct electronic voting. Boards may now schedule and run virtual or hybrid meetings, provided they adopt reasonable verification and participation procedures. The change amends the Nonprofit Corporation Act and business corporation provisions to make remote participation a board-authorized option, not a rare exception.28
| Property managers | You can schedule and run virtual or hybrid membership meetings where the board authorizes them — build verification and participation procedures into your standard meeting playbook. |
| HOA board members | The board decides whether and how to use remote meetings. Adopt written procedures before holding your first virtual or electronic-vote session. |
| Community association attorneys | Confirm that meeting and voting procedures align with both the amended statutes and the association's bylaws before the board goes remote. |
| Homeowners | Owners gain the option to participate and vote remotely when the board enables it — no more choosing between attending in person or missing a vote. |
S.881 · Act 165 of 2024 · 2023–2024 Regular Session
South Carolina prohibited recorded vendor agreements that claim to run with the land but primarily benefit the vendor rather than the property owner. The act expressly exempts declarations created under the HOA Act and the Horizontal Property Act — so standard HOA governing documents are not affected. The carve-out matters: boards and managers do not need to revisit their existing declaration or bylaws because of this law.34
| Property managers | Review any long-term recorded vendor agreements attached to the property to confirm they don't trigger voidability under the new act. |
| HOA board members | Existing declarations created under the HOA Act and Horizontal Property Act are expressly exempt — your standard governing documents are not affected. |
| Community association attorneys | When drafting or reviewing vendor agreements, confirm they do not purport to run with the land in ways the new act would void. |
| Homeowners | The act targets specific recorded vendor agreements, not standard HOA assessment obligations — your assessments and covenants are unaffected. |
Recent court rulings
South Carolina courts have examined when a use restriction actually reaches the conduct at issue — finding that even an unambiguous covenant demands a fact-specific violation analysis.
Hoffman v. Saad Holdings, LLC
The South Carolina Court of Appeals took up a dispute over a residential-purposes covenant in the Providence Point subdivision on Lake Hartwell in Anderson County. A lot owner crossed undeveloped lots to reach lake docks; neighboring homeowners sought an injunction, arguing the use violated the residential restriction. The court agreed the covenant was unambiguous — but ruled that on the specific facts of this case, the owner's use did not actually violate it. The court denied the injunction, reading a bare “residential purposes” restriction as aimed at commercial use rather than as a requirement that anyone live on the lot. The holding matters: even a clear covenant requires a fact-specific analysis of whether the conduct at issue falls within the restriction's reach. Verify the decision's status before relying on it — a Supreme Court petition is pending.35
| Property managers | Before pursuing enforcement, evaluate whether the use restriction actually reaches the specific conduct you're concerned about — not just whether the restriction exists. |
| HOA board members | Weigh litigation risk when a covenant may not, on its facts, reach the activity complained of — even if the language seems straightforward. |
| Community association attorneys | Cite this decision for the principle that an unambiguous use covenant still requires a fact-specific violation analysis before enforcement can succeed. |
| Homeowners | Owners facing enforcement have an argument that the specific use must clearly fall within the covenant's prohibition — not just be adjacent to it. |
Active legislative debates
Several 2025–2026 session bills sought to expand the HOA Act beyond disclosure, targeting foreclosure procedures, dispute resolution, and financial transparency. None was enacted: South Carolina's General Assembly sits in two-year terms, and every bill not passed when the 2026 session ended died and must be refiled from first reading.
H.3447 · 2025–2026 Regular Session
This bill would have required an association to obtain judicial authorization — a rule to show cause — before initiating foreclosure on a homeowner for unpaid assessments. The owner would have had a formal opportunity to contest in court before the association could proceed. H.3447 passed the House 110-2 on February 27, 2025 and was referred to Senate Judiciary on March 4, 2025, where it recorded no further action. It died with the 126th General Assembly and was never enacted.36
| Property managers | The bill died, so no mandatory judicial show-cause step applies before an association initiates foreclosure. |
| HOA board members | Foreclosure decisions carry no added statutory show-cause step; the declaration and existing foreclosure law govern. |
| Community association attorneys | The proposed show-cause requirement did not change how collection files are structured; § 29-3-810 was never enacted. |
| Homeowners | The proposed pre-foreclosure court step, which would have given owners more time and legal standing, is not law. |
S.366 · 2025–2026 Regular Session
S.366 would have barred associations from foreclosing on a homeowner's primary residence over unpaid HOA assessments. The bill died in the Senate Committee on Judiciary at the end of the 2025–2026 session and was never enacted; its introduction reflected a growing legislative concern about the consequences of assessment-lien enforcement for owner-occupants who live in the communities they are assessed to support.36
| Property managers | The bill died, so primary residences carry no statutory foreclosure bar; the declaration and existing foreclosure law govern. |
| HOA board members | The board's enforcement toolbox for owner-occupants did not shrink; S.366 was not enacted. |
| Community association attorneys | Remedies to recover assessments from primary-residence owners are unchanged by S.366, which died in committee. |
| Homeowners | The proposed protection from losing their home over unpaid HOA assessments was not enacted. |
H.3350 · 2025–2026 Regular Session
H.3350 would have added a mandatory internal dispute resolution process to the HOA Act under a new § 27-30-155. It would also have expanded magistrates court jurisdiction to cover all matters between a homeowner and a homeowners association — a significant reach beyond the current monetary-dispute-only threshold. The bill died in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry at the end of the 2025–2026 session and was never enacted.36
| Property managers | No statutory IDR process was enacted, so there are no required statutory steps before disputes reach court beyond the declaration's own. |
| HOA board members | No statute requires a written dispute-resolution procedure before legal action against an owner; H.3350 died. |
| Community association attorneys | Magistrates-court jurisdiction was not expanded, so where HOA disputes are litigated is unchanged. |
| Homeowners | The proposed process and broader court access that would have made it easier to challenge an association's decisions were not enacted. |
H.3425 · 2025–2026 Regular Session
H.3425 would have added financial disclosure requirements to the HOA Act under a new § 27-30-135 and barred associations from using HOA funds to pay individual homeowner utility bills under a new § 27-30-137. The pairing reflected a sustained legislative interest in transparency and limits on how boards direct assessment revenue. The bill died in committee at the end of the 2025–2026 session and was never enacted.36
| Property managers | No new statutory financial reporting to owners was enacted; H.3425 died in committee. |
| HOA board members | The proposed bar on using HOA funds to pay individual owner utility bills was not enacted. |
| Community association attorneys | Utility-payment practices face no new statutory compliance rule from H.3425. |
| Homeowners | The proposed limits on how assessments can be spent on individual owners' behalf were not enacted. |
National positioning and related coverage
South Carolina stands apart from many of its peers in one important respect: it is not a UCIOA state, and until 2018 it had no dedicated statute governing non-condominium HOAs at all. The 2018 Act changed that — but only partially. It added mandatory disclosure, annual document recording, transparency requirements, and a complaint-tracking service. It did not add the detailed governance procedures, owner budget ratification, or comprehensive records-inspection rights that California's Davis-Stirling Act and Florida Chapter 720 require.
That narrower scope defines the state's framework. South Carolina maintains two separate statutes — an older condominium law in the Horizontal Property Act, and a newer, thinner disclosure-focused law for non-condominium associations — rather than consolidating them into a single modern community-interest code.
For multi-state operators, the practical implication is direct. South Carolina compliance rests above all on two obligations: diligent annual recording of rules and amendments before January tenth, and careful reading of each association's recorded declaration. There is no single comprehensive statutory checklist. The declaration does the heavy lifting, and an unrecorded rule is simply unenforceable. Federal frameworks, including the Fair Housing Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, also apply to South Carolina associations alongside the state statutory scheme described here; HOA Weekly's federal HOA law coverage tracks each separately.
Closing note
Statutory text was verified against the current South Carolina Code on scstatehouse.gov. Third-party summaries were used for context only, not as authority for legal conclusions.
The Hoffman v. Saad Holdings, LLC opinion was filed February 18, 2026, then withdrawn, substituted, and refiled March 25, 2026. A South Carolina Supreme Court petition is listed as pending, which means the decision is final at the Court of Appeals level but could face further review. Verify its status on the South Carolina Courts website before relying on it.
The status of the 2025–2026 session bills reflects the end of the 126th General Assembly. The 2026 regular session ran January 13 to May 14, 2026; bills not enacted by the end of the two-year term died, and committee referrals and one-chamber passage lapsed with them.
This page describes the statutory framework and does not constitute legal advice for any specific association.
Related South Carolina HOA Topics
Footnotes
- S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-31-10 to 27-31-320, South Carolina Horizontal Property Act — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-30-110, Short title; § 27-30-120, Definitions — South Carolina Homeowners Association Act, 2018 Act No. 245 (H.3886), eff. May 17, 2018 — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-30-130, Enforceability of governing documents; recording requirements; rules, regulations, and amendments — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-30-170, Construction; no conflict with Nonprofit Corporation Act — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-31-30, Establishment of horizontal property regime; recording of master deed — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-31-100, Master deed or lease; required contents — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-31-180, 27-31-190, 27-31-240, 27-31-280 — Records of receipts and expenditures; common expenses; insurance; council right of access — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- Queen's Grant II Horizontal Property Regime v. Greenwood Development Corp., 368 S.C. 342, 628 S.E.2d 902 (Ct. App. 2006), Op. No. 4101 — South Carolina Courts ↩
- Heatley v. Mariner's Cay Marina Condo, LLC, Op. No. 6131 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2026), South Carolina Judicial Branch (declarant amendment converting common elements void) ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-31-60, 27-31-70, South Carolina Legislature (common elements undivided; acquiescence of co-owners) ↩
- Taylor v. Amar & Kennie Gill Living Tr., Unpublished Op. No. 2025-UP-181 (S.C. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), South Carolina Judicial Branch (unanimity requirement dispensed with under § 33-31-160; no precedential value) ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-160, South Carolina Legislature (court may dispense with meeting and voting requirements) ↩
- 2017–2018 Bill 3886, Act 245 of 2018, enacting the South Carolina Homeowners Association Act — ratified May 14, 2018, eff. May 17, 2018 — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-30-120, Definitions — as amended by 2019 Act No. 66 (H.3754), § 4, eff. May 16, 2019 — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-30-140, Annual budget increases; forty-eight-hour notice requirement; inapplicable to HOAs incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Act — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-30-150, Application of document-access provisions; § 27-30-160, Concurrent jurisdiction of magistrates court — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-30-310 to 27-30-340, Department of Consumer Affairs complaint-tracking services; § 27-30-340(E) bars promulgating governance regulations or arbitrating disputes — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Dep't of Consumer Affairs, Homeowners Association Annual Report 2026 (Feb. 4, 2026), South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs (complaint counts, concern categories and the Department's stated limits under S.C. Code § 27-30-340) ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-50-40(A)(9), Residential property condition disclosure; HOA governance disclosure requirement — as amended by 2018 Act No. 245, § 2 — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-101 et seq., South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act of 1994 — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- 31 C.F.R. § 1010.380, Reports of beneficial ownership information (current text on eCFR) (ecfr.gov) (domestic-entity exemption for entities created by filing with a U.S. secretary of state or similar office). ↩
- Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirement Revision, 91 Fed. Reg. 52508 (Aug. 14, 2026) (final rule), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (domestic-entity exemption; preamble on homeowners' associations) ↩
- Griffin v. Giovino, Op. No. 6117 (S.C. Ct. App. July 16, 2025), South Carolina Judicial Branch (director immunity removed for willful conduct; punitive award) ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-834, South Carolina Legislature (immunity of directors of not-for-profit associations) ↩
- McCabe, Trotter & Beverly, P.C., "Ambiguity in HOA Covenants" — discussing the South Carolina canon that restrictive covenants are construed with all doubts resolved in favor of free use of property ↩
- Oak Forest Homeowners Ass'n v. Dennison, Unpublished Op. No. 2025-UP-443 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2025), South Carolina Judicial Branch (covenants bind through chain of title; no precedential value) ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-31-150, 27-31-160, Administration; bylaws; § 27-31-180, Records of receipts and expenditures — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- 2023–2024 Bill 4049, "Remote Annual Meetings," amending S.C. Code Ann. §§ 33-7-101, 33-31-701, 33-7-102, and 33-31-702 — enacted as 2023 Act No. 68, eff. May 19, 2023 — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- All Property Management, "South Carolina Property Management Laws" — South Carolina does not require community association managers to hold a real estate broker's license or a statewide CAM license ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-31-190, Sharing of common expenses; § 27-31-210, Lien for unpaid assessments; foreclosure in the manner of a mortgage — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- S.C. Code Ann. § 27-30-130(B)(2), South Carolina Legislature (January tenth recording of rules and amendments) ↩
- S. 903, 126th Gen. Assemb., 2025-2026 Sess. (S.C.), bill history, South Carolina Legislature (passed Senate 39-0; died in House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry) ↩
- S. 903, 126th Gen. Assemb., 2025-2026 Sess. (S.C.), as reported by Senate Judiciary Committee with amendment (Apr. 9, 2026), South Carolina Legislature (proposed amendments to § 27-30-130) ↩
- 2023–2024 Bill 881, "Prohibition of Unfair Real Estate Service Agreements Act," Act 165 of 2024, signed May 20, 2024; § 27-28-30(C)(4) exempts declarations created under the Homeowners Association Act and Horizontal Property Act — South Carolina Legislature ↩
- Hoffman v. Saad Holdings, LLC, Op. No. 6138, Appellate Case No. 2024-000794 (S.C. Ct. App.), heard Nov. 12, 2025, filed Feb. 18, 2026, withdrawn, substituted, and refiled Mar. 25, 2026 (Thomas, J.; Williams, C.J., and Curtis, J., concurring) — South Carolina Courts ↩
- H.3447, Homeowners Association Authority (rule to show cause before foreclosure) — South Carolina Legislature, 2025–2026 Regular Session; S.366, HOA Fees (foreclosure prohibition for primary residence) — South Carolina Legislature; H.3350 (mandatory internal dispute resolution; expanded magistrates-court jurisdiction) — South Carolina Legislature; H.3425 (financial disclosure; utility-payment prohibition) — South Carolina Legislature; none enacted as of June 2026 per South Carolina General Assembly List of Acts ↩
Stay on top of South Carolina HOA law
Every week: new South Carolina legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.