S. 366 would have voided every HOA foreclosure clause in South Carolina. It sat in committee for 26 months
S. 366 would have voided every HOA foreclosure clause in South Carolina. It sat in committee for 26 months
2026-09-19 · South Carolina · Legislation · Did not pass
S. 366 would have removed an association's power to foreclose on a member's home, by two independent routes at once. It was introduced on February 20, 2025, referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary the same day, and its history records nothing after that for the remaining 26 months of the General Assembly.1
Four reforms in one bill
Sponsored by Sens. Kimbrell, Garrett, Fernandez, Leber, Stubbs, Gambrell, Corbin, Nutt and Peeler, the bill is filed under the short title "HOA Fees," which understates it considerably. It proposed:
- Amending Section 15-41-30 — the exemptions from attachment, levy and sale — to prohibit an association from foreclosing on a debtor's primary residence.
- Amending Section 27-30-130 to nullify any provision in governing documents granting an association authority to foreclose on a homeowner's property.
- Amending Section 27-30-150 to require disclosure of any monies paid to an officer of the association and of any contract the association entered into.
- Adding Section 27-30-180 to limit an association's ability to restrict speech, and amending Section 27-1-60 to extend the display right to additional flags.
Why the double route mattered
An association's foreclosure power in South Carolina does not come from a statute that grants it. It comes from the recorded declaration, which creates the lien and authorises its enforcement. A bill that only exempted the residence from levy and sale would leave the clause intact; a bill that only voided the clause would leave the general exemption statute untouched. S. 366 did both, which is what made it the most complete foreclosure prohibition filed in the state.
The disclosure half, which drew less attention
Section 27-30-150 currently applies the Nonprofit Corporation Act's document-access provisions to associations. S. 366 would have added two specific disclosure duties on top: money paid to an officer, and contracts entered into by the association.
Those two items map directly onto what South Carolina homeowners complain about. In the Department of Consumer Affairs' 2026 report, "request to access information/view documents ignored" was the third-largest concern category at 9.5% of 1,104 concerns, and the Post and Courier's review of the underlying data found complaints clustering on special assessments, allocation of association funds and failure to produce financial statements.2
South Carolina has no statutory rule requiring an association to disclose what it pays its own officers, and no bill to create one survived this term.
The speech provision
A new Section 27-30-180 limiting association restrictions on speech would have been novel in South Carolina. Restrictive covenants are private agreements between owners, so First Amendment analysis does not reach them directly; a limit on what an association may restrict has to come from the legislature. The state has enacted exactly one such limit — Section 27-1-60, on display of the United States flag — and S. 366 would have widened that section as well.
Note that a competing bill, H. 4006, proposed its own Section 27-30-180 on political signs, and a third, H. 5068, proposed the same section number again. Three bills, one section number, none enacted.
What South Carolina law actually provides
- Foreclosure. Where the declaration creates a lien for assessments and authorises enforcement, the association proceeds as a lienholder through the court of common pleas, referred to the master-in-equity. There is no statutory minimum debt, no statutory pre-suit mediation requirement, and no primary-residence exemption.
- Disclosure. Section 27-30-150 imports the Nonprofit Corporation Act's access provisions. There is no separate officer-compensation or contract-disclosure duty.
- Speech. Section 27-1-60 protects display of the United States flag. Nothing in South Carolina statute limits an association's authority over political signs, and a covenant restricting them is enforced on ordinary contract principles if it was properly recorded.
The pattern across the term
Three separate bills attacked association foreclosure this term from three directions: S. 366 (void the clause and exempt the residence), H. 3447 (require a rule to show cause before a sale), and H. 5204 (impose a $10,000 debt floor and a market-value sale). H. 3447 passed the House 110-2 and died in Senate Judiciary. S. 366 never left Senate Judiciary. H. 5204 never left House Labor, Commerce and Industry.
The prior term followed the same shape: H. 3180 passed the House 99-0 in April 2024 and died in Senate Judiciary. Everything must be refiled from first reading in 2027.
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.