Summary
The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that disbursement of loan proceeds in connection with a residential refinancing or credit line transaction is an integral part of the closing process and must be supervised by an attorney. The court did not require that funds pass through the supervising attorney's trust account and delayed the rule's effective date until January 22, 2007.
Holdings
- Disbursement of funds in the context of a residential real estate loan closing is an integral part of the closing process and constitutes a step that must be supervised by an attorney.
- The court required attorney supervision of disbursement but did not prescribe a specific form of supervision or require that the loan funds pass through the supervising attorney's trust account.
Questions Presented
- Whether disbursement of residential loan proceeds in connection with a residential refinancing or credit line transaction constitutes the practice of law.
- Whether disbursement of those proceeds must be supervised by an attorney.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Doe v. McMaster, 355 S.C. 306, 585 S.E.2d 773 (2003)(followed)
- State v. Buyers Serv. Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987)(followed)
- In re Boulware, 366 S.C. 561, 623 S.E.2d 652 (2005)(considered)
- In re Fortson, 361 S.C. 561, 606 S.E.2d 461 (2004)(considered)
- In re McMillian, 359 S.C. 52, 596 S.E.2d 494 (2004)(considered)
- In re Arsi, 357 S.C. 8, 591 S.E.2d 627 (2004)(considered)
- In re Pstrak, 357 S.C. 1, 591 S.E.2d 623 (2004)(considered)
- In re Boyce, 364 S.C. 353, 613 S.E.2d 538 (2005)(considered)
- In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules, 309 S.C. 304, 422 S.E.2d 123 (1992)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…