Consumer Law

Loan Modifications Do Not Require Attorney Supervision

In Crawford v. Central Mortgage Co., the supreme court held that “lenders do not engage in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and mailing loan modifications to borrowers and recording the executed documents without participation of a licensed attorney.”

The court consolidated two cases for this opinion:  Crawford v. Central Mortgage Co. and Warrington v. The Bank of South Carolina.  The borrowers in both cases did not make required loan payments.  The borrowers subsequently requested loan modifications, and the banks modified the loans without the supervision of a lawyer. Continue reading

Share Button

The South Carolina Board of Dentistry Is Immune from Suit Under the Tort Claims Act

In Health Promotion Specialists, LLC v. South Carolina Board of Dentistry, the supreme court held that the South Carolina Board of Dentistry (Board) receives immunity from tort suits such that the plaintiffs could not file suit against the Board for promulgating an emergency regulation.

The General Assembly has enacted laws to “authorize, subject to certain restrictions, dental hygienists to provide various oral health services in public settings, including schools.”  The Board is the regulatory authority for dentists and dental hygienists in South Carolina.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 40-15-20 (2011).  The General Assembly amended the laws concerning oral health services in school to create fewer restrictions for dental hygienists to provide preventive dental services in schools. Continue reading

Share Button