A Horry County condo association won $6.75 million from its builder, and the Court of Appeals let every part of it stand
A Horry County condo association won $6.75 million from its builder, and the Court of Appeals let every part of it stand
2026-09-19 · South Carolina · Courts
A nine-building condominium complex built in 2000 and 2001 sued its builder in 2018 and recovered $6.75 million. The Court of Appeals affirmed in published Opinion No. 6124 on September 24, 2025.1
The decision is the current South Carolina statement on the two defences that decide most association construction-defect cases: when the limitations clock started, and whether the statute of repose bars the claim at all.
The limitations fight
Section 15-3-530 gives three years, running from discovery, measured objectively. The builder's strongest evidence was the association's own 2006 board minutes, which discussed leaking windows and recorded a property manager suggesting it might be a "Centex problem."
The circuit court granted summary judgment on the plumbing and ramp claims on that basis, but denied it as to the windows and water damage. The Court of Appeals refused to disturb the jury's verdict: expert testimony "cut both ways as to notice," the jury was properly charged, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict is available only where no reasonable jury could reach the verdict returned.
The repose fight
The applicable version of Section 15-3-640 gave thirteen years from substantial completion. The current statute provides eight.
But repose is not absolute. Section 15-3-670(A) makes it unavailable against a defendant guilty of gross negligence, and Section 15-3-670(B) provides that a building-code violation is not gross negligence per se but is admissible as evidence of it. Gross negligence was therefore a jury question, and the repose bar did not dispose of the case.
Why the year matters more than the rule
The repose period an association gets depends on when its building was substantially completed, not on when it sues. Wedgewood was completed in 2000-2001 under a thirteen-year regime; the current eight-year period applies to more recent construction.
For South Carolina associations, that produces a practical split. An older coastal building may still have a longer window than a newer one, and the analysis starts with substantial completion and the statute in force at the time rather than with a single number.
It also means the gross-negligence exception carries real weight. Where a code violation is provable, it is evidence a jury may use to strip the repose defence entirely — which converts a threshold bar into a contested fact question.
The warranty point that cost the association
The master deed's common-area warranty terminated at the end of one year by its plain language. The association's argument that an assignment in writing was a condition precedent failed.
That is a short warranty by any measure, and it is set by the recorded instrument rather than by statute. South Carolina imposes no minimum statutory warranty period on common elements in a condominium regime, so the declaration is the whole of it.
The companion decision: how a defendant stops interest
A companion unpublished opinion, 2025-UP-324, filed the same day, holds the circuit court properly allowed the builder to deposit the $6.75 million into court under Rule 67, SCRCP, which stops post-judgment interest accruing during the defendant's own appeal. Section 34-31-20(B) does not conflict.2
For an association that has won, that is a meaningful piece of practical information: a well-capitalised defendant can freeze the interest clock by depositing the judgment while it appeals. The money is secured; the return on waiting is not.
What board minutes do, and do not, decide
The most transferable point in the decision concerns records. Minutes recording water intrusion, rot or leaks are evidence of notice, and a builder will use them. But Wedgewood holds they do not automatically decide the limitations question as a matter of law — where expert evidence conflicts about what the association reasonably should have understood, the question can go to a jury.
The inverse is equally true and was fatal to two of the claims here: on the plumbing and ramp issues, summary judgment on limitations was granted and not disturbed.
The wider position
South Carolina has no statutory reserve or inspection requirement that would independently surface a defect in an ageing building, so litigation is the mechanism by which many defects are identified, and the limitations and repose analysis is where those cases live or die. A separate bill this term, S. 244, would have moved the construction-defect limitations period from eight to ten years; it passed the Senate in 2025 and died in House Judiciary.
See also South Carolina's position on condominium structural inspections and reserve studies.
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.