South Carolina

South Carolina — Contract for Deed / Installment Land Contract / Bond for Title

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited primary sources before acting. Statutes in this area are frequently amended. Last verified: 2026-06-08.

South Carolina has no comprehensive installment-land-contract statute on the Texas model. Instead, the field is governed by common-law equity plus general property, recording, and disclosure statutes. The single most important fact for an operator is the remedy regime: under Lewis v. Premium Investment Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361 (2002), a South Carolina court of equity can relieve a defaulting purchaser from a strict-forfeiture clause and grant an equitable right of redemption — so a substantially-paid contract for deed behaves much more like a mortgage to be foreclosed than a forfeitable instrument. Because South Carolina is a judicial-foreclosure-only state with no power of sale, enforcing a defaulted CFD with real buyer equity means going to the Master-in-Equity and foreclosing the buyer’s equity of redemption, not evicting. See forfeiture-vs-foreclosure.

0. Identity & Terminology

• In-state name(s): “contract for deed,” “installment land sales contract,” “agreement for deed,” “bond for title.” South Carolina statutes use the phrase “installment land sales contract” in the disclosure context, S.C. Code § 27-50-20, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c050.php.
• Recognition: common law (default/remedy doctrine) plus statutory overlays for recording (Title 30, Ch. 7) and residential disclosure (Title 27, Ch. 50). There is no dedicated CFD enforcement chapter.
• Statutory home: No single home. Relevant statutes: recording — S.C. Code § 30-7-10, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c007.php; residential disclosure — S.C. Code §§ 27-50-10 to -110, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c050.php; interest/usury — S.C. Code § 34-31-20, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t34c031.php. The remedy rule is case law (Lewis, below).
• Remedy regime: treat_as_mortgage. Lewis v. Premium Investment Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361 (2002), holds a court of equity can relieve a defaulting purchaser from strict forfeiture and grant redemption; a forfeiture clause can be an unenforceable penalty. Combined with South Carolina’s judicial-foreclosure-only posture, a substantially-paid CFD is enforced by foreclosing the equity of redemption rather than by forfeiture. See lewis-v-premium-investment-corp-2002, forfeiture-vs-foreclosure.

1. Formation & Mandatory Disclosures

• Statute of frauds: Writing required. A contract for the sale of land is within South Carolina’s statute of frauds and must be in a signed writing. S.C. Code § 32-3-10(4) — no action “to charge any person upon any contract or sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments or any interest in or concerning them” unless the agreement is in a writing signed by the party to be charged. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t32c003.php.
• Mandatory disclosures: required (residential condition disclosure). The Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Title 27, Ch. 50) applies to installment land sales contracts of residential property of 1–4 dwelling units. S.C. Code § 27-50-20, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c050.php. The owner must deliver a written disclosure statement covering water/sewage, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, wood-destroying organisms, zoning/restrictions, environmental hazards, existing leases, and HOA information. § 27-50-40. Installment land contracts are not on the § 27-50-30 exemption list (which exempts foreclosure, fiduciary, family, divorce, tax-sale, new-construction-first-sale, and written-waiver transfers). There is no CFD-specific statutory duty to disclose tax delinquency, liens, payoff, or to provide a survey — those are matters of contract and common-law misrepresentation, not a Texas-style § 5.069 packet.
  • Form prescribed: Yes — a statutory disclosure-statement form/contents under § 27-50-40 (owner may state actual knowledge, or make no representation, per item).
  • Timing: Deliver before the real estate contract is signed. § 27-50-50 (failure to deliver before signing does not void the contract but triggers a purchaser rescission window per the Act’s terms).
  • Penalty for omission: Limited. An owner who knowingly violates a duty under the Act, or discloses information he knows to be false/incomplete/misleading, is liable for actual damages and court costs, and a court may award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. § 27-50-65. Failure to deliver does not void the contract, create a title defect, or delay closing. § 27-50-50. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c050.php.
• Recording requirement: not mandated, but strongly incentivized; no deadline. A contract for the purchase and sale of real property is recordable and is valid against subsequent creditors and purchasers for value only from the day and hour it is recorded. S.C. Code § 30-7-10, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c007.php. South Carolina is a race-notice recording state with no statutory recording deadline for a CFD. Either party may record; in practice the buyer records to protect priority. Possession does not by itself give constructive notice of an unrecorded contract. S.C. Code § 30-7-90.
• Annual accounting statement: not required by statute. South Carolina has no Texas-style § 5.077 annual-statement mandate for installment contracts. Accounting is contract-governed. (Confirmed absent in CFD-specific statutes; flagged.)
• Prepayment: No CFD-specific statute. Prepayment terms (and any penalty) are contract-governed; for consumer credit transactions, prepayment without penalty is generally protected, but a real-estate CFD’s prepayment terms are set by the contract. (Statute-specific prepayment-penalty rule for CFD flagged in needs_verification.)
• Usury / interest cap applicable to CFD: South Carolina’s general legal rate of interest is 8.75%/yr (the rate that applies absent agreement). S.C. Code § 34-31-20(A), https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t34c031.php. But parties may agree in writing, by express agreement, to any rate — there is no general usury cap on a written contract; that rule is supplied by S.C. Code § 37-10-106, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t37c010.php, not by § 34-31-20. Applies to the financed balance of a CFD like other seller financing.

2. Buyer’s Equitable Interest

• Equitable title passes / equitable conversion: South Carolina recognizes that the installment-contract purchaser in possession holds an equitable interest in the land and an equitable right of redemption that a forfeiture clause cannot waive away by its terms. Lewis, 351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361 (2002), https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/htmlfiles/SC/25510.htm. This is the doctrine of equitable conversion applied to land contracts — see equitable-conversion.
• Recordable / insurable: The buyer’s interest is recordable (§ 30-7-10) and recording fixes priority against later creditors/purchasers. Owner’s title insurance is available in the South Carolina market on the underlying title; coverage of the buyer’s contract interest is policy-dependent.
• Risk of loss / improvements: Contract-governed in practice. The Lewis factors expressly weigh the value of improvements made by the purchaser when measuring the equity that bars forfeiture, confirming the buyer’s improvements accrue to the buyer’s redeemable equity.

3. Default & Remedies → see forfeiture-vs-foreclosure

• Primary remedy: judicial foreclosure of the equity of redemption (mortgage-like). South Carolina is a judicial-foreclosure-only state — there is no power of sale; a creditor must sue and obtain a court-ordered sale (typically before the county Master-in-Equity). For a defaulted CFD with buyer equity, Lewis channels the seller into the equitable path: the buyer’s right of redemption must be foreclosed, not unilaterally forfeited.
• Forfeiture available? Restricted by equity. A strict-forfeiture clause is not self-executing against a purchaser with substantial equity. A court of equity can relieve the defaulting purchaser from forfeiture and allow redemption where the clause operates as a penalty. Lewis, 351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361 (2002). Forfeiture may still hold where the buyer has little or no equity and the retained payments approximate fair rental value / actual damages.
• Substantial-equity bar (exists): Yes — judge-made, multifactor (no fixed percentage). Lewis directs courts to weigh: (1) the purchaser’s equity; (2) the length of and reasons for the default; (3) the relationship between the installments and the property’s fair rental value; (4) the value of improvements; (5) overall fairness of enforcing forfeiture; and (6) the amount forfeited versus the seller’s actual damages. Leading case: lewis-v-premium-investment-corp-2002. This aligns South Carolina with the Skendzel anti-forfeiture line — see skendzel-v-marshall-1973.
• Statutory cancellation: None. South Carolina has no statutory cancellation/cure regime for installment land contracts (unlike Minnesota’s notice-and-cancellation statute). Any cure right is contractual; the overriding protection is the equitable right of redemption supplied by Lewis. There is no prescribed statutory notice form or fixed statutory cure period.
• Judicial foreclosure required when: the purchaser asserts (or the equities show) a redeemable equitable interest — i.e., meaningful equity, improvements, or a long payment history — such that strict forfeiture would be a penalty.
• Acceleration / restitution offset: Acceleration is contract-governed; enforceability turns on the clause and equity. On redemption the purchaser pays the entire purchase price/balance (Lewis), and where forfeiture is allowed the retained payments are measured against the seller’s actual damages / fair rental value (the penalty inquiry), supplying a built-in restitution/offset check.
• Seller’s other remedies: suit on the debt / specific performance, judicial foreclosure of the equity of redemption (Master-in-Equity), damages, and — only where the buyer lacks equity and the clause is not a penalty — contractual forfeiture.

▸ For Sellers / Operators — South Carolina is a treat-as-mortgage state by case law, not statute. The deal-defining fact: under lewis-v-premium-investment-corp-2002 a strict-forfeiture clause is not self-executing — once your buyer builds real equity (long payment history, improvements), a court can let them redeem by paying the balance, and you must foreclose the equity of redemption judicially (no power of sale; go to the Master-in-Equity). Do not rely on a “retain all payments as rent” clause or try to evict — a CFD buyer is an equitable owner, not a tenant. On the compliance side: deliver the § 27-50-40 residential condition disclosure before signing (knowing violation = actual damages + fees, § 27-50-65); record the contract to fix priority (§ 30-7-10, no deadline but race-notice); set the interest rate in writing (no usury cap by express agreement, § 34-31-20); and check your Dodd-Frank / SAFE threshold (§4) if you do volume. The cleaner structure for a high-equity sale is often a note-and-mortgage rather than a CFD.

▸ For Buyers — Your core protection is the equitable right of redemption (Lewis): a forfeiture clause cannot automatically strip your equity. You hold an equitable interest (§2) and are an owner, not a tenant — you cannot simply be evicted; the seller must foreclose, and you can defend and redeem. Record your contract (§ 30-7-10) to protect priority against the seller’s later creditors.

3b. Remedies — Advanced

• Election of remedies: The seller elects among suit on the debt, judicial foreclosure of the equity of redemption, specific performance/damages, or (only on low equity) forfeiture. Pursuing forfeiture against a high-equity buyer invites the Lewis penalty defense and conversion to a redemption/foreclosure proceeding.
• Deficiency after foreclosure: South Carolina permits deficiency judgments after judicial foreclosure, subject to the appraisal/upset-value procedure that lets the debtor obtain a market-value credit against the deficiency. S.C. Code § 29-3-680 to § 29-3-760 (appraisal of mortgaged property; deficiency reduced to appraised value), https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t29c003.php. (Direct application of the appraisal statute to a foreclosed CFD flagged in needs_verification — the statute speaks to mortgages; CFDs are foreclosed by analogy.)
• Equitable relief from forfeiture: Courts do grant it — that is the entire holding of Lewis. Standard: forfeiture relieved where the clause operates as a penalty under the six-factor equity analysis.
• Ejectment vs. eviction path: A defaulting CFD buyer is an equitable owner, not a tenant; the seller cannot use the magistrate’s-court ejectment of tenants to recover possession. Possession is resolved through the equity/foreclosure action. (Direct South Carolina holding that a CFD buyer is not subject to landlord-tenant ejectment flagged in needs_verification.)
• Quiet title after cancellation/foreclosure: Title is cleared through the foreclosure judgment and Master’s deed, or a quiet-title action; the buyer’s recorded contract interest must be addressed in the proceeding. (Court/timeline specifics flagged in needs_verification.)
• Forfeited payments: Treated under the penalty-vs-liquidated-damages doctrine. Where retained payments grossly exceed the seller’s actual damages, the forfeiture is an unenforceable penalty and the buyer may redeem (Lewis).
• Intervening seller-lien risk to buyer: Because the seller holds legal title until payoff, the seller’s judgment creditors and lenders can attach the legal title; the buyer’s recording under § 30-7-10 is the principal protection for priority.

4. Federal Overlay (as applied in-state) → see dodd-frank-seller-financing, safe-act-mlo

• Dodd-Frank exposure: A South Carolina residential CFD is seller financing/ “credit.” The federal ≤1-property (no balloon, no ATR underwriting) and ≤3-property (with ATR) loan-originator exclusions apply the same here as nationally — see dodd-frank-seller-financing for the 12 C.F.R. § 1026.36(a) thresholds. Volume sellers (multiple owner-financed homes/12 months) lose the exclusion and must use a licensed loan originator and meet ATR.
• SAFE Act / MLO licensing: South Carolina’s SAFE-Act mortgage-originator licensing lives in the S.C. Mortgage Lending Act, S.C. Code Title 37, Ch. 22, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t37c022.php. Note a state-specific trap: the prior seller-financer carve-out (a person selling residential real estate who lends/services no more than five purchase-money notes) was deleted by 2017 Act No. 93 — so South Carolina no longer has a five-note statutory exemption, and seller-financers above the federal/state thresholds may need a licensed MLO. The Act still exempts a person negotiating a loan with an immediate family member or secured by the person’s own residence, and anyone exempt under the federal SAFE Act. See safe-act-mlo.
• State consumer-protection overlay: No CFD-specific statute. General protection comes from the S.C. Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code § 39-5-20, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t39c005.php, plus the § 27-50 disclosure duty and common-law fraud/misrepresentation. (SCUTPA applicability to CFD sales flagged.)
• CFPB enforcement notes: South Carolina was within the 2016+ CFPB/state-AG scrutiny of predatory contract-for-deed programs (e.g., Harbour Portfolio); the Lewis redemption doctrine and § 27-50 disclosures are the in-state guardrails.

5. Title, Recording & Wraps → see garn-st-germain-due-on-sale

• Memorandum recording: South Carolina permits recording the contract itself (or a memorandum) as a “contract for the purchase and sale of real property”; recording fixes priority as of the day and hour recorded. § 30-7-10, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c007.php. No special prescribed CFD form; the instrument must be properly executed and acknowledged for recording (Title 30, Ch. 5).
• Garn-St. Germain due-on-sale: A CFD or wrap is a “transfer” that can trigger the lender’s due-on-sale clause under 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3. The Garn-St. Germain residential exemptions (e.g., transfer into an inter vivos trust where the borrower remains a beneficiary) generally do not cover a sale-on-terms to a third-party CFD buyer, so a South Carolina wrap carries acceleration risk. See garn-st-germain-due-on-sale.
• Underlying mortgage / wraps: Not prohibited by a CFD-specific statute (no Texas § 5.085 analog), but selling subject to an undisclosed senior lien exposes the seller to SCUTPA / fraud and due-on-sale acceleration, and risks the buyer’s payments being lost if the senior loan defaults. Disclosure of any underlying lien is a practical and common-law necessity; payments are commonly serviced through escrow.
• Deed delivery mechanism: Typically delivered at payoff (or held in escrow pending final payment); the seller retains recorded legal title until the contract is performed. On full payment the seller must convey marketable title by deed.
• Marketable title at payoff: The seller must deliver marketable title; intervening seller liens must be cleared. The buyer’s recording (§ 30-7-10) and a title search at payoff are the protections.
• Title insurance: Available to the buyer in the South Carolina market (subject to underwriter terms); standard at the eventual deed/closing.
• Seller death / bankruptcy effect: The seller’s estate or trustee takes subject to the buyer’s recorded contract interest; recording under § 30-7-10 is the buyer’s protection against the seller’s successors and creditors.

6. Tax Treatment

• IRC § 453 installment reporting: A South Carolina CFD is an installment sale for federal income tax; the seller reports gain ratably as principal is received, subject to the dealer exception (IRC § 453(b)(2), (l)). See irc-453-installment-sale.
• Property tax responsibility: Contract-governed; the buyer pays in practice as the party in possession and equitable owner. Ad valorem tax is administered by county assessors/treasurers; delinquency can lead to tax sale under Title 12, Ch. 51.
• Homestead / owner-occupant assessment ratio: A resident CFD buyer in possession may qualify for the 4% owner-occupied legal-residence assessment ratio, S.C. Code § 12-43-220(c), https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t12c043.php. The ratio applies to property “owned totally or in part in fee or by life estate and occupied by the owner,” and the statute extends it to a buyer holding under a recorded contract for sale or bond for title — so a CFD buyer’s eligibility turns on recording the contract (§ 30-7-10). A merely equitable, unrecorded interest is not enough.
• Transfer / documentary-stamp tax (deed recording fee): South Carolina imposes a deed recording fee of $1.85per$500 of consideration ($1.30state+$0.55 county), due when the deed transferring title is recorded — not on recording the installment contract. S.C. Code § 12-24-10, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t12c024.php. So the transfer tax is generally deferred until the warranty deed is delivered at payoff.
• Mortgage registration tax: South Carolina imposes no mortgage-recording/ registration tax; only nominal recording fees apply.

7. Bankruptcy & Death / Divorce

• Buyer bankruptcy: Characterization is contested nationally — executory contract (11 U.S.C. § 365) vs. secured debt. Because South Carolina treats a substantially-paid CFD as a mortgage-equivalent with an equity of redemption (Lewis), the secured-debt characterization (cure-and-pay through a plan) is the better-fitting analysis for an equity-rich buyer, but the point is not settled by a South Carolina bankruptcy holding cited here. See forfeiture-vs-foreclosure. (South Carolina-specific bankruptcy characterization flagged in needs_verification.)
• Seller bankruptcy: The buyer’s recorded equitable interest generally survives; the trustee takes subject to the recorded contract (§ 30-7-10).
• Assignability by buyer: Generally permitted subject to contract terms; anti-assignment clauses are common and generally enforced as written. (South Carolina enforceability authority flagged in needs_verification.)
• Survivorship / divorce: The buyer’s equitable interest is marital/non-marital property characterized like other realty and is subject to equitable distribution on divorce and to the buyer’s estate plan / intestacy on death.

8. Case Law (real, verified)

Case	Year	Topic	Holding (plain English)	Source
lewis-v-premium-investment-corp-2002	2002	forfeiture / equity of redemption	A court of equity can relieve a defaulting installment-contract purchaser from a strict-forfeiture clause and allow redemption; the clause can be an unenforceable penalty. Six-factor equity test.	https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/htmlfiles/SC/25510.htm

• Lewis v. Premium Investment Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361 (2002) (Op. No. 25510), aff’g as modified 341 S.C. 539, 535 S.E.2d 139 (Ct. App. 2000). Supreme Court of South Carolina. Good law — the controlling South Carolina installment-land- contract / equitable-redemption decision.

9. Edge Cases (state-specific notes)

• garn-st-germain-due-on-sale — A South Carolina wrap/CFD over an existing mortgage risks due-on-sale acceleration under 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3; the residential exemptions do not cover a sale-on-terms to a third-party buyer.
• No statutory cancellation regime — unlike Minnesota, South Carolina has no notice-and-cancellation statute; the equity of redemption (Lewis) is the buyer’s protection and the seller’s procedural constraint.
• Judicial foreclosure only — no power of sale; defaulted high-equity CFDs run through the Master-in-Equity (S.C. Code Title 29, Ch. 3).
• Recording is race-notice with no deadline — priority dates from recording (§ 30-7-10); possession is not constructive notice (§ 30-7-90), so the buyer should record promptly.
• Disclosure penalty is weak — § 27-50-65 reaches only knowing violations (actual damages + fees) and failure to deliver does not void the contract (§ 27-50-50).

10. Operations

• Where records live: County Register of Deeds / Register of Mesne Conveyances (RMC) in each of 46 counties; recorded contracts and deeds are indexed there. Foreclosures run through the county Master-in-Equity (or the Court of Common Pleas where there is no Master).
• Public access: Online county RMC/ROD record portals; scstatehouse.gov/code for the South Carolina Code; sccourts.org for opinions and the Master-in-Equity rules (e.g., Rule 71, SCRCP).
• Who may draft (UPL): South Carolina has a strong real-estate UPL doctrine — State v. Buyers Service Co., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987) requires an attorney to supervise material steps of a residential real-estate closing (title work, deed preparation, loan-document preparation, closing, and recording), https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/1987/22730-1.html. A CFD’s preparation and the payoff conveyance are conveyancing tasks that implicate this rule.
• Costs / timelines: County recording fees; the $1.85/$500 deed recording fee on the eventual deed (§ 12-24-10). No statutory CFD cure/cancellation clock; timelines are set by the foreclosure docket of the county Master-in-Equity.
• Key agencies: County RMC/ROD; county Master-in-Equity; S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs (MLO licensing, consumer protection); S.C. Real Estate Commission (LLR); the Attorney General (SCUTPA).
• Useful forms: § 27-50-40 Residential Property Condition Disclosure Statement; standard recordable contract-for-deed and warranty-deed forms.

11. Meta

• sources:
  • {type: case, url: “https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/htmlfiles/SC/25510.htm”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: case, url: “https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lewis-v-premium-investment-corp”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: “https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c007.php”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: “https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c050.php”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: “https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t34c031.php”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: “https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t29c003.php”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: secondary, url: “https://studicata.com/case-briefs/case/lewis-v-premium-investment-corporation/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: secondary, url: “https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2002/25510.html”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
• needs_verification:
  • Whether the deficiency-appraisal statute (S.C. Code §§ 29-3-680 to -760) applies to a foreclosed CFD by analogy, with a confirming case (the statute itself — appraisal credit against deficiency — is verified; CFD-by-analogy application is the open point).
  • Direct South Carolina holding that a defaulting CFD buyer is an equitable owner not subject to magistrate’s-court (landlord-tenant) ejectment.
  • Court and timeline for quiet title / clearing the buyer’s recorded contract interest after foreclosure or non-redemption.
  • SCUTPA (§ 39-5-20 — statute verified) applicability to a CFD sale (knowing/unfair-practice standard) with a confirming case.
  • South Carolina-specific bankruptcy characterization (executory contract § 365 vs. secured debt) of a CFD.
  • Enforceability of anti-assignment clauses against a CFD buyer under South Carolina law.
• open_questions:
  • At what equity threshold do South Carolina trial courts, post-Lewis, reliably deny forfeiture? (The test is multifactor, not a fixed percentage like Texas’s 40%/48 payments.)
  • May a seller who recorded the CFD pursue forcible ejectment against a no-equity defaulter, or must every default run through equity?
• cross_links: forfeiture-vs-foreclosure, equitable-conversion, dodd-frank-seller-financing, safe-act-mlo, garn-st-germain-due-on-sale, irc-453-installment-sale, skendzel-v-marshall-1973, sebastian-v-floyd-1979, lewis-v-premium-investment-corp-2002
• changelog:
  • 2026-06-08 — Initial authoring. Classified remedy regime treat_as_mortgage from Lewis v. Premium Investment Corp. (351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361 (2002)) + judicial-foreclosure-only posture. Populated disclosures (Title 27, Ch. 50), recording (§ 30-7-10), usury (§ 34-31-20), deed recording fee (§ 12-24-10), and federal overlay. Created the Lewis case page.
  • 2026-06-08 — Adversarial citation-verification pass. Independently retrieved every cited primary source: Lewis (sccourts.org Op. 25510), §§ 27-50-20/-30/-40/-50/-65, § 30-7-10, § 30-7-90, § 32-3-10(4), § 34-31-20(A), § 37-10-106, § 12-24-10, §§ 29-3-680 to -760, § 39-5-20, § 12-43-220(c), Title 37 Ch. 22, and State v. Buyers Service Co. (292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987)) — all confirmed real and current; no fabrications. Fixes: (1) re-attributed “any rate by written agreement” from § 34-31-20(A) to § 37-10-106 (§ 34-31-20 only sets the 8.75% legal rate); (2) corrected disclosure-timing cite (§ 27-50-50, not -40(A)); (3) refined § 12-43-220(c) 4% ratio to its actual hook — recorded contract-for-sale/bond-for-title, not generic equitable title; (4) verified State v. Buyers Service and removed its needs_verification flag; (5) added the 2017 Act 93 repeal of the five-note seller-financer MLO exemption (Title 37 Ch. 22); (6) confirmed § 32-3-10(4) text. Resolved 5 needs_verification items; gap_score 11→7.

---

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and may be out of date. Contract-for-deed statutes are frequently amended and remedies turn on facts. Consult a licensed attorney in this jurisdiction before drafting, enforcing, or signing an installment land contract.