2021 South Carolina Code of Laws
Title 30 - Public Records
Chapter 6 - Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act

Editor's Note

2008 Act No. 210, Section 1, provides at follows:

"The General Assembly provides for the following Prefatory Note to Chapter 6 of Title 30 contained in Section 2:

"Prefatory Note

"The status of electronic information technology has progressed rapidly in recent years. Innovations in software, hardware, communications technology and security protocols have made it technically feasible to create, sign and transmit real estate transactions electronically.

"However, approaching the end of the 20th Century, various state and federal laws limited the enforceability of electronic documents. In response, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) in 1999. As of October 1, 2004, UETA had been adopted in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign) was also adopted in 2000. The two acts give legal effect to real estate transactions that are executed electronically and allow them to be enforced between the parties to the transaction.

"Even though documents resulting from electronic transactions are valid and enforceable between the parties, there is uncertainty and confusion about whether those electronic documents may be recorded in the various local land records offices in the several states. Legacy laws and regulations in many states purport to limit recordable documents to ones that are in writing or on paper or require that they be originals. Other laws and regulations require signatures to be in writing and acknowledgments to be signed. Being electronic and not written on paper, being an electronic version of an original paper document, or having an electronic signature and acknowledgement instead of handwritten ones, an electronic document might not be recordable under the laws of these states. The continuing application of these legacy laws and regulations remain uncertain (see Op. Cal. Atty. Gen. No. 02-112 (Sept. 4, 2002)).

"Despite these uncertainties, recorders in approximately 40 counties in several states began recording electronic documents. These efforts depend, however, on the initiatives of individual recorders and the opportunities available under the laws of those states. They are piecemeal and offer only limited interoperability among the recording venues and across state lines. They do not provide a uniform legal structure for the acceptance and processing of electronic documents.

"In response, a few states have convened study committees or task forces to consider the question of recording electronic documents (see Report of Iowa State Bar Ass'n, Real Estate Modernization Comm., draft of Ch. 558B-Iowa Electronic Recording Act (2001); Conn. Law Revision Comm., An Act Establishing the Connecticut Real Property Electronic Recording System (Conn. Gen Assembly, Judiciary Comm., Raised Bill No. 5664, 2004)). In 2002, a drafting committee was established by the NCCUSL Executive Committee to draft a Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act. The Committee's decision followed a recommendation of the NCCUSL Committee on Scope and Program. Their actions were in recognition of a strong recommendation from the Joint Editorial Board on Uniform Real Property Acts that a uniform act be drafted.

"The Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act was drafted to remove any doubt about the authority of the recorder to receive and record documents and information in electronic form. Its fundamental principle is that any requirements of state law describing or requiring that a document be an original, on paper, or in writing are satisfied by a document in electronic form. Furthermore, any requirement that the document contain a signature or acknowledgment is satisfied by an electronic signature or acknowledgement. The act specifically authorizes a recorder, at the recorder's option, to accept electronic documents for recording and to index and store those documents.

"If the recorder elects to accept electronic documents, the recorder also must comply with certain other requirements set forth in the act. In addition, the act charges an Electronic Recording Commission or an existing state agency with the responsibility of implementing the act and adopting standards regarding the receipt, recording, and retrieval of electronic documents. The Commission or agency is directed to adopt those standards with a vision toward fostering intra- and interstate harmony and uniformity in electronic recording processes.

"This act does not state the means of funding the establishment or operation of an electronic recording system in the various recording venues. No single approach is inherently the best for funding electronic recording systems. This is especially true because of the range of taxation systems and cultures existing in the various states and recording venues and the diversity of the various states and recording venues in terms of population and resources. In fact, the best system for any state or recording venue might involve a combination of approaches.

"The establishment, and perhaps the operation, of an electronic recording system might be funded from the general taxes and revenues of the state or county. Because of the relatively large "front end" expenses needed to set up an electronic recording system, this approach might be very appropriate for that purpose. Whether the funding is to be by the county or the state is an issue that should be resolved prior to the passage of this act. A related question is whether the funding should cover the entire cost of setting up the system or only part of it with the remaining costs to be paid by recording and searching fees dedicated to the establishment of the electronic recording system."