Background
Boyles’s late mother executed a deed conveying two Jasper County parcels to Boyles while reserving a life estate; she died five years later. Boyles later defaulted on loans that Coastal States Bank had secured by mortgages on his property. The bank obtained a Confession of Judgment, which was assigned through NCP Bayou, LLC to NG Solutions, LLC. After Boyles defaulted on a modified repayment schedule, NCP filed the Confession of Judgment and sought to enforce a lien on the two Jasper County parcels.
Boyles moved for declaratory judgment under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-30, asking the trial court to determine whether he had any legal interest in the parcels. His theory: the deed conveying the parcels to him was drafted, witnessed, notarized, and filed by a person who was not a licensed attorney, making it the product of unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and potentially void. If the deed was void, he argued, he had never acquired a legal interest in the property—and the judgment lien had nothing to attach to. The trial court granted NCP’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on three grounds: (1) there is no private cause of action for UPL; (2) there was no justiciable controversy; and (3) South Carolina law does not provide that a deed prepared in connection with UPL is void.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals (Thomas, McDonald, and Turner, JJ.) reversed and remanded for a hearing on the declaratory judgment claim. The court held the trial court misread the complaint on all three grounds.
First, on the “no private cause of action” basis: Boyles was not asserting a tort claim for UPL. He was invoking the Declaratory Judgment Act to obtain a determination of his interest in specifically described real property. Section 15-53-30 expressly authorizes “[a]ny person interested under a deed” to “have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument.” The fact that the validity question might implicate UPL does not convert the request into a UPL cause of action. Although there is no independent civil action for UPL, a party may still “avail himself of any appropriate existing civil remedy” when proximately damaged by conduct that includes UPL. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Mack, 445 S.C. 103, 109, 912 S.E.2d 236, 239 (2025).
Second, on the “no justiciable controversy” basis: the validity of the deed turns on an open question of South Carolina law—whether a deed prepared by a non-attorney is void rather than merely voidable or unaffected. South Carolina statutes set out the requirements for a valid deed (execution in the presence of two witnesses, proper recording) without expressly requiring attorney preparation. Attorney-discipline cases establish that non-attorneys may commit UPL by preparing deeds, but none of those decisions hold that the resulting deed is void. The circuit court’s conclusion that there was no controversy because no statute or case expressly answered the question was the opposite of the truth: the absence of an authoritative ruling on whether UPL voids a deed is precisely what makes the declaratory judgment action ripe. Remand is required for a hearing on that question.
Third, on the merits below: the trial court correctly noted that existing precedent (including Matrix Financial Services Corp. v. Frazer, 394 S.C. 134 (2011)) did not expressly hold that UPL voids a deed. The Court of Appeals agreed that the point remains unresolved but held it should be decided on a full record after a hearing, not at the pleading stage.
Key Takeaways
- A property owner may pursue a declaratory judgment action under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-30 to determine the validity of a deed alleged to have been prepared by a non-attorney; such an action is not a “private cause of action for UPL” and survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion even if no South Carolina court has yet held that UPL renders a deed void.
- South Carolina law leaves unresolved whether a deed prepared by a non-attorney in violation of the prohibition on unauthorized practice of law is void, voidable, or unaffected as to title—that question is now squarely presented for determination on remand.
- The open question of deed validity has significant practical stakes for lien enforcement: if a deed is void, the grantor never conveyed title, and a subsequent judgment creditor has no interest to levy against; creditors and title insurers should be aware of the risk when chain-of-title review raises UPL concerns.
- The distinction between “no cause of action for UPL” and “no justiciable declaratory judgment controversy touching on UPL” is critical; the former does not foreclose the latter when the plaintiff seeks a determination of property rights, not a UPL damages award.
Why It Matters
The unauthorized preparation of deeds in South Carolina remains a persistent problem, particularly in rural counties where lay “deed preparers” have historically operated. The trial court’s dismissal had effectively shielded a UPL-tainted deed from any legal challenge by the grantor’s successor. The Court of Appeals has now opened the door to a merits determination—a determination that, depending on how the circuit court rules, could affect title to the Jasper County parcels and the enforceability of the creditor’s lien.
For South Carolina real estate practitioners and title insurers, Boyles is a reminder to scrutinize chain-of-title carefully for deeds prepared outside the supervision of a licensed attorney. If the remand results in a holding that UPL voids a deed, the implications for title insurance and lien enforcement could be significant—especially in older deeds where the preparer’s identity may be difficult to establish. Creditors enforcing judgment liens should confirm clear title before proceeding to execution, and title insurers should consider whether their policies adequately address UPL-tainted conveyances.