Homeowners said the community promised to stop the harassment and then did nothing. That claim goes back to court
Homeowners said the community promised to stop the harassment and then did nothing. That claim goes back to court
2026-09-19 · South Carolina · Courts
South Carolina homeowners who say a community entity promised to deal with harassment on their property, and then did not, have had their case revived.1
Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-401 was submitted March 1, 2026 and filed August 5, 2026. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded per curiam. It carries the Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR banner and has no precedential value.
The allegations
The homeowners alleged that golfers repeatedly trespassed on their property and used racial slurs; that they complained; and that the club voluntarily undertook a duty to stop it and then failed to act on that undertaking.
The claims were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), with prejudice. That dismissal was reversed.
The four holdings
- Whether a duty was voluntarily assumed is a question of fact, not something resolvable on the pleadings.
- South Carolina has not adopted a physical-harm requirement for a negligence claim founded on a voluntary undertaking.
- The alleged conduct could meet the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as outrageous as in Ford v. Hutson.
- The South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act does not require privity, following Colleton Preparatory Academy.
The court also held a dismissal with prejudice was improper without a meaningful opportunity to amend, citing Skydive Myrtle Beach.
A procedural note on the parties: the property owners' association was a defendant below but is not a respondent on appeal. The respondents are the country club and its operator.
The doctrine, and why it reaches community associations
A voluntary undertaking is the rule that a party who has no duty to act, but who chooses to act anyway, can be held to a standard of care in how it acts. The duty is created by the undertaking, not by the underlying relationship.
That is a meaningful principle in a community-association setting, because associations and clubs routinely take on things no statute or covenant obliges them to take on: telling owners they will address a neighbour's conduct, that they will enforce a rule, that they will investigate a complaint, that they will handle a problem with a third party on the property.
South Carolina imposes no statutory duty on an association to protect owners from harassment by third parties, and no statutory obligation to enforce its own covenants. The Department of Consumer Affairs' 2026 complaint report records failure to adhere to or enforce covenants and bylaws as the single largest complaint category at 16.8% of 1,104 concerns — but a complaint to the Department produces no enforceable outcome, because the Department states it cannot compel participation, require an outcome or arbitrate.2
Meusel identifies a route by which a promise can become an obligation anyway.
What it does not decide
This is a reversal of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Nothing has been proved. The court held the claims were adequately pleaded to proceed — that whether a duty was assumed is a fact question, not that a duty was assumed.
It is also unpublished, so it is persuasive at most. And the association itself is not a respondent on appeal, so the decision does not adjudicate an association's liability on these facts.
The wider point about enforcement discretion
South Carolina associations have broad discretion over whether and how to enforce covenants, and the business judgment rule codified at Section 33-31-830 protects directors' intra vires decisions, with the burden of showing lack of good faith on the challenger.
What Meusel suggests is that the protection attaches to the decision, not necessarily to the communication about it. A board that declines to act is exercising discretion. An entity that states it will act, and then does not, is in different territory — at least far enough into it to survive a motion to dismiss.
Related: fining authority, dispute resolution, and the business judgment rule in South Carolina association litigation.
Related South Carolina HOA Topics
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.