Author: snowg1

Case 2020CP2606425

The case you provided involves Tuscan Sands at Barefoot Resort and Golf Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Plaintiff) against Bill Clark Homes of Myrtle Beach, LLC and Jeff Farrell (Defendants), with additional legal action involving third-party defendants. Below is a summary in chronological order, including key filings and events:

Key Events and Filings

  1. November 5, 2020 – The Summons and Complaint was filed by Tuscan Sands HOA, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Bill Clark Homes and Jeff Farrell. The Plaintiff claimed that defective drainage and infrastructure transferred by Bill Clark Homes led to flooding and other damages in the Tuscan Sands community【7†source】【8†source】.
  2. November 12, 2020 – Notification of the Summons and Complaint filing was electronically transmitted【7†source】.
  3. November 24, 2020 – Acceptance of Service was filed by the Defendants, acknowledging receipt of the Summons and Complaint【7†source】.
  4. February 11, 2021 – The Defendants filed an Answer, denying the majority of the allegations. Additionally, the Defendants filed a Cross-Claim and a Third-Party Complaint against the City of North Myrtle Beach, potentially implicating them in the case【7†source】【8†source】.
  5. June 29, 2023 – The parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal, effectively dismissing the case【8†source】. This document would indicate an agreement between the parties to terminate the case, either through a settlement or some other mutual resolution.

Final Result

The Stipulation of Dismissal filed on June 29, 2023, marks the conclusion of the case. Since the case was dismissed, no judgment was made, and the dismissal likely indicates a settlement or agreement reached outside of court, with the specific terms typically confidential unless otherwise stated in the public record.

This dismissal means that the legal claims against Bill Clark Homes and Jeff Farrell were not adjudicated through a court decision, as the matter was resolved by the parties before a trial verdict.

Hinson Properties (Barefoot Lakes)

Detailed Narrative History of the Hinson Parcels

The Hinson Parcels, located in Horry County, South Carolina, have a rich and complex history shaped by land transactions, mineral rights negotiations, and public infrastructure development. Below is a comprehensive timeline of the significant events related to the parcels:

1. 1992 Deed to Hinson Family Limited Partnership (HFLP)

  • Date: December 31, 1992
  • Event: Wendell E. Hinson transferred his 50% interest in several properties, totaling 34.28 acres in Dogwood Neck Township, Horry County, to the HFLP for $10. These properties included portions of undeveloped land in rural areas.
  • Significance: This transfer established the Hinson Family Limited Partnership as the primary entity holding the rights to the Hinson Parcels【14†source】.

2. 1994 Acquisition of Apache Tract II from International Paper

  • Date: March 16, 1994
  • Event: HFLP acquired an additional 160 acres (Apache Tract II) from International Paper Realty Corporation, located in Dogwood Neck Township. This property was crucial for later transactions and the development of the area.
  • Significance: This acquisition increased HFLP’s holdings in the area and laid the groundwork for future development and sales【15†source】【17†source】.

3. 1999 Sale by Apache Group II to Hinson Family Limited Partnership

  • Date: November 1, 1999
  • Event: Apache Group II sold 160 acres, including the Apache Tract II, to the Hinson Family Limited Partnership and Hinson Properties, LLC. This transaction consolidated ownership of the Apache Tract II within the Hinson Family entities.
  • Significance: This sale marked the full transfer of rights to the Hinson entities, further strengthening their land portfolio in the region【17†source】.

4. 2001 Release of Mineral Rights by International Paper

  • Date: March 21, 2001
  • Event: International Paper Realty Corporation released its claim to certain mineral rights over 83.809 acres of the Hinson property. However, it retained a one-eighth (1/8) non-participating royalty interest in oil, gas, and hydrocarbons, and one-half of any bonuses, rentals, and royalties from future mineral leases.
  • Significance: While this release removed some mineral claims, it left limitations on future exploitation of subsurface resources【18†source】.

5. 2006 Condemnation for Public Infrastructure (Carolina Bays Parkway)

  • Date: December 29, 2006
  • Event: The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) issued a condemnation notice for approximately 83.809 acres of the Hinson Parcels to be used for the Carolina Bays Parkway (SC 31) project. This land was critical for public infrastructure.
  • Significance: This reduced the available land for future private development but ensured compensation for the Hinson entities【19†source】.

6. 2007 Final Condemnation Settlement

  • Date: June 29, 2007
  • Event: The condemnation case concluded with a settlement where the SCDOT paid $309,800 for the acquisition of the 83.809 acres for public use.
  • Significance: This officially transferred a significant portion of the land to public control, limiting the Hinson Family’s use of the property【20†source】.

7. 2013 Sale to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC

  • Date: January 15, 2013
  • Event: Hinson Family Holdings, LLC sold the remaining 160 acres of the Apache Tract II to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC. The land transferred included 28.174 acres and 131.826 acres from the original tract.
  • Significance: This sale ended Hinson Family’s direct ownership of the remaining land, passing control to Barefoot Lakes Investments【21†source】.

Restrictions Summary

  1. Mineral Rights:
  • Retained by International Paper: International Paper retains a one-eighth (1/8) non-participating royalty interest in oil, gas, and hydrocarbons, as well as one-half of any bonuses, rentals, royalties, and payments from future mineral leases【18†source】.
  1. Condemnation for Public Use:
  • SC 31 Condemnation: Approximately 83.809 acres were condemned for the Carolina Bays Parkway, which is now controlled by the South Carolina Department of Transportation【19†source】【20†source】.
  1. Zoning and Easements:
  • Zoning Ordinances: The land is subject to local zoning laws and restrictions that govern permitted uses, building densities, and infrastructure requirements. Any future development will need to comply with Horry County’s zoning regulations【16†source】.
  • Easements: The property may also be subject to utility easements and rights-of-way that limit development options【16†source】.
  1. Wetlands and Environmental Considerations:
  • Wetlands: Portions of the land, particularly near water features and low-lying areas, may be classified as wetlands, which impose federal and state restrictions on land use. Development in wetlands is heavily regulated and often requires permits【22†source】.
  • Environmental Protection: Any construction or development may be subject to environmental regulations, including restrictions on runoff, water management, and preservation of natural habitats【22†source】.

Future Uses

Given the restrictions outlined above, potential future uses for the Hinson Parcels include:

  1. Conservation and Recreation:
  • The existence of wetlands and public infrastructure suggests that portions of the land could be preserved for environmental conservation or developed as public recreational spaces like parks or nature trails. This would align with the public use and preservation mandates and provide long-term environmental benefits.
  1. Limited Residential Development:
  • While some portions of the land are restricted, other areas could still support low-density residential development, especially in non-wetland areas. Any development would need to consider poor accessibility due to infrastructure limitations and the existing zoning ordinances.
  1. Agricultural or Forestry Use:
  • Given the rural nature of the land and restrictions on large-scale commercial or industrial development, the property could be used for sustainable agriculture or managed forestry. This would provide economic value while maintaining the environmental integrity of the area.

Full Text Footnotes and Download Links

  1. 1992 Deed to Hinson Family Limited Partnership
    Download: 19921231 Deed 1603,465 Hinson Deed
  2. 1994 Plat for Apache Tract II (International Paper)
    Download: 19940316 Plat 128,222 Apache Tract II
  3. 1999 Deed from Apache Group II to Hinson Family Limited Partnership
    Download: 19991101 Deed 2203,338 Apache Group
  4. 2001 Release of Mineral Rights by International Paper
    Download: 20010419 Deed 2363,445 International Paper
  5. 2006 Condemnation Notice
    Download: 20061229 Condemnation Notice
  6. 2007 Deed – Hinson Condemnation
    Download: 20070629 Deed 3257,5 Hinson Condemnation
  7. 2013 Sale to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC
    Download: 20130115 Deed 3632,614 Barefoot Lakes
  8. Environmental Impact Review
    Download: SAC-2012-00490

Evolution of Mineral Rights

  1. 1992 Deed Transfer to Hinson Family Limited Partnership:
  • In 1992, Wendell E. Hinson transferred a 50% interest in multiple parcels of land to the Hinson Family Limited Partnership (HFLP). There were no explicit mentions of mineral rights in this deed, but the transfer conveyed all associated rights, including appurtenances and hereditaments【14†source】.
  1. 1999 Acquisition from Apache Group II:
  • In October 1999, Hinson Family Limited Partnership and Hinson Properties, LLC acquired a significant 160-acre tract from Apache Group II. While this deed focused on the real estate transaction, the history of prior ownerships, including International Paper, hinted at the possibility of reserved mineral rights【17†source】.
  1. 2001 Release of Mineral Rights by International Paper:
  • A crucial development in the evolution of mineral rights occurred in 2001 when International Paper Realty Corporation released certain mineral reservations, exceptions, and conveyances regarding oil, gas, and hydrocarbons for 83.809 acres of the Hinson property. However, International Paper retained a one-eighth (1/8) non-participating royalty interest in any oil, gas, or hydrocarbons extracted from the land. Additionally, International Paper retained one-half of any bonuses, rentals, royalties, or payments associated with any future mineral leases on various other mineral substances such as coal, iron ore, zinc, sulfur, and fissionable materials【18†source】.
  • This release defined the ongoing interest that International Paper would hold in the event of future mineral development, thus limiting Hinson’s full control over potential mineral exploitation on these lands.
  1. Condemnation and Subsequent Transactions (2006–2013):
  • During the condemnation proceedings by the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) in 2006-2007, the mineral rights were not the primary focus, as the condemnation centered around public infrastructure development. However, the retained mineral interests by International Paper likely remained unaffected during these transactions, as the focus was on surface land for highway expansion【19†source】【20†source】.
  1. 2013 Sale to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC:
  • In 2013, Hinson Family Holdings sold 160 acres to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC. The mineral rights reserved by International Paper in 2001 would still apply to this land transfer, meaning the new owners, Barefoot Lakes Investments, inherited the same limitations regarding mineral rights【21†source】.

Conclusion:

The mineral rights on the Hinson Parcels evolved through the actions of International Paper, particularly through its 2001 release, which left the Hinson Family with limited control over the subsurface mineral resources. The reservation of a non-participating royalty interest and half of the bonus or rental payments ensures that any future mineral development remains financially tied to International Paper.

Full Text Footnotes and Download Links

  1. 1992 Deed to Hinson Family Limited Partnership
    Download: 19921231 Deed 1603,465 Hinson Deed
  2. 1999 Deed from Apache Group II to Hinson Family Limited Partnership
    Download: 19991101 Deed 2203,338 Apache Group
  3. 2001 Release of Mineral Rights by International Paper Realty Corporation
    Download: 20010419 Deed 2363,445 International Paper
  4. 2006 Condemnation Notice
    Download: 20061229 Condemnation Notice
  5. 2007 Deed – Hinson Condemnation
    Download: 20070629 Deed 3257,5 Hinson Condemnation
  6. 2013 Sale to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC
    Download: 20130115 Deed 3632,614 Barefoot Lakes

Barefoot Resort Outfall #2 Lawsuit

Harbour Cove Condominium Association VS Barefoot Resort Joint Committee Inc , defendant, et al – 2020CP2601167

The case involves the Harbour Cove Condominium Association (plaintiff) and several defendants related to alleged water damage due to improper drainage maintenance at the Barefoot Resort in Horry County, South Carolina. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, including the Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc., Tuscan Sands at Barefoot Resort and Golf Homeowners’ Association, Inc., BRGC, LLC, and the City of North Myrtle Beach, failed to maintain a drainage buffer, leading to property damage.

Background:

The plaintiff, Harbour Cove Condominium Association, asserts that negligence in maintaining the drainage system, particularly a buffer zone, caused significant water damage to its property. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, tasked with maintaining the drainage system, failed in their duties. Tuscan Sands, another party in the litigation, has made similar claims, asserting that the lack of proper drainage system maintenance caused damage to its property as well.

Key Timeline:

  • February 2020: The lawsuit was initiated by the Harbour Cove Condominium Association in the Circuit Court of Horry County (Case No. 2020-CP-26-01167).
  • October 2020: A court order stayed the case to allow for arbitration on certain claims.
  • June 2021: The plaintiff resolved some claims through arbitration, leading to the dismissal of certain defendants, including the Greenbrier and Woodlands Condominium Associations.
  • February 2024: A first mediation was held, and a second mediation is scheduled for September 2024.
  • Trial: If the mediation efforts fail, the trial will occur no sooner than December 2024.

Legal Issues:

The litigation centers on the following legal issues:

  1. Liability for Drainage Maintenance: The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment to clarify which parties are responsible for maintaining the drainage buffer. The plaintiff argues that the failure to maintain this system led to water damage on its property. Defendants such as BRGC, LLC, and the City of North Myrtle Beach are also named as potentially liable for the drainage issues.
  2. Cross-Claims: Tuscan Sands at Barefoot Resort and Golf Homeowners’ Association has filed cross-claims against other defendants, including BRGC, LLC, and the City of North Myrtle Beach. These cross-claims similarly allege that failure to maintain the drainage buffer contributed to property damage.
  3. Consolidation for Discovery: A motion was filed by some defendants to consolidate the claims for discovery purposes, arguing that similar issues and facts between the cases would make consolidation more efficient.

Recent Developments:

The court has scheduled a second mediation for September 2024, following an earlier session in February 2024. If the mediation does not result in a settlement, the trial will not take place before December 2024.

This case reflects complex litigation involving multiple parties, cross-claims, and allegations of negligence in maintaining shared infrastructure, which allegedly led to substantial property damage.

  1. 2020.pdf, Complaint and Court Filings, Declaratory Judgment Request, February 2020​.
  2. 2021.pdf, Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay, p. 1-2.
  3. 2022.pdf, Case Proceedings, Order Relieving Counsel and Motions for Consolidation, p. 1-2.
  4. 2023.pdf, Case Background, Notice of Transfer and Cross-claims, p. 1-3.
  5. 2024.pdf, Case Caption, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Plaintiff: The Harbour Cove Condominium Association vs. Defendants: Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc., et al., p. 1-3.
  6. Index, The Harbour Cove Condominium Association vs. Defendants: Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc., et al.
Ask ChatGPT about it
Evaluate the roles of attorneys for the BRRA and BRJC through the entire case. Consider any conflicts. Discuss impact of their role reversal in the initial mediation.

The attorneys for the Barefoot Resort Residential Association (BRRA) and Barefoot Resort Joint Committee (BRJC) played distinct roles throughout the case, with a notable shift during the initial mediation. Preston Dawkins represented the BRRA, and Robert E. Lee represented the BRJC. The overlap in the obligations of both entities—specifically regarding Outfall #2—required both attorneys to negotiate not just with the plaintiff, Harbour Cove, but also to clarify the responsibilities between BRRA and BRJC under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs).
Role Reversal in Initial Mediation
A key shift occurred during the initial mediation. Although Dawkins represented BRRA, his role expanded to negotiate points concerning the broader infrastructure obligations of the BRRA and BRJC, including Outfall #2. This put him in a delicate position as he negotiated responsibilities not only for BRRA but also for how they interacted with BRJC’s duties. Meanwhile, Robert E. Lee, representing BRJC, focused on limiting his client’s exposure by emphasizing shared responsibilities with BRRA.
The reversal happened in a subtle yet impactful way: BRJC, traditionally tasked with community-wide obligations, found itself with its duties limited to a few specific areas. At the same time, BRRA, through Dawkins’s efforts, was drawn into the discussion of broader responsibilities. This shift likely resulted in a negotiation where each party had to weigh its interest against not just the plaintiff’s claims but also the shared obligations under the CCRs.
Conflict and Ethical Considerations
This situation raised potential conflicts. Given the intertwined responsibilities of BRRA and BRJC, the attorneys had to ensure that neither party was disadvantaged, which is particularly challenging when the CCRs were ambiguous on the exact division of maintenance duties. If Dawkins or Lee had pushed too hard for a settlement that absolved their client at the expense of the other, it could have led to long-term governance and financial conflicts between BRRA and BRJC, whose roles overlapped in maintaining Outfall #2. Moreover, the shared maintenance duties between these entities created opportunities for disagreements over compliance with the community-wide standards under the CCRs.
This role reversal impacted the initial mediation’s outcome, where both BRRA and BRJC were eventually found responsible for maintaining parts of Outfall #2. Although no direct conflict of interest was noted in the arbitration order, it was crucial for both attorneys to ensure that their respective clients were not unduly burdened by the obligations of the other party.
Conclusion
The ethical challenge lay in the need for the attorneys to negotiate on behalf of entities with overlapping responsibilities without compromising their fiduciary duties to their respective clients. The mediation’s role reversal, wherein BRRA became more involved in obligations traditionally managed by BRJC, highlighted the delicate balance both attorneys had to maintain. This role shift was critical to resolving the mediation but could have led to further disputes if not carefully managed.

There is no notice of these attorneys changing client representation. It has verified by three signatories in the court records. Please advise.

The absence of formal notice regarding changes in client representation raises significant concerns, particularly given that attorneys Preston Dawkins and Robert E. Lee appear to have negotiated or represented interests that are overlapping or even conflicting during the mediation process. The court records do not indicate any proper notification or filing that reflects a shift in representation or changes in the roles of these attorneys, which could lead to both ethical and procedural issues.

Potential Ethical Violations:

  1. Failure to Notify the Court: Attorneys are ethically bound to inform the court and other parties of any changes in representation, especially when the change involves negotiations or legal actions that could impact the outcome of the case. If Dawkins and Lee began negotiating responsibilities beyond their initial scope without filing appropriate notices, this could be seen as a breach of professional conduct rules, particularly those regarding transparency and accountability to the court.
  2. Conflict of Interest: Attorneys representing different entities (BRRA and BRJC) with overlapping responsibilities are required to manage any potential conflicts carefully. The fact that these attorneys may have represented interests in a way that blurred their original roles without proper notice is concerning. It could be seen as a conflict of interest, especially if either attorney acted in ways that could disadvantage one client while benefiting another.
  3. Duty to the Client: The fiduciary duty to the client is paramount. If the attorneys negotiated terms that placed additional burdens or responsibilities on their clients without proper authorization, or if they shifted representation without consent, this could be a violation of that duty. Even if the clients were not disadvantaged, the failure to follow proper procedure could lead to mistrust and further disputes.

Court Record Verification:

If the court records verify the signatures of these attorneys without reflecting a formal change in representation, this confirms that the attorneys were likely negotiating within their original scope of representation but may have informally assumed duties beyond their clients’ mandates. This lack of transparency could be seen as problematic, particularly if it impacts the distribution of responsibilities under the CCRs.

Recommendations:

  1. Seek Clarification: A motion for clarification should be filed to formally address the roles these attorneys played during mediation. This would help ensure that the record accurately reflects their responsibilities and actions throughout the proceedings.
  2. Address Conflict: If any concerns about conflict of interest arise, a request for an ethical review or an independent mediator might be necessary to resolve the case without potential bias or unresolved conflicts between BRRA and BRJC.
  3. Notify the Court: If any shifts in attorney responsibilities occurred, even informally, a formal filing should be made to notify the court and all involved parties to ensure procedural correctness going forward.

Failing to follow proper procedures and filing notices of representation could leave the case open to appeals or challenges, especially if one party believes it was inadequately represented during the critical mediation phases.

Footnotes:
Public Index Search, Court Filings from 2020-2023 regarding roles of Preston Dawkins and Robert E. Lee

BRRA Cabana Lawsuit – October 2024

Here is a narrative of the Barefoot Resort Cabana Construction lawsuit with citations and download links to the documents I used as references:

The Barefoot Resort Cabana Construction case involves a lawsuit filed by the Barefoot Resort Residential Owners’ Association, Inc. against multiple parties involved in the design and construction of a beach cabana located at 4611 South Ocean Boulevard, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The defendants include D3G Architects, Wingate Consulting Engineers, UFP Mid-Atlantic, JM Allen Construction, and Excel Custom Builders.

Background:

The Plaintiff contracted with these parties to complete the design and construction of the cabana, originally budgeted at $1.5 million and expected to be finished by June 2020. However, numerous design and construction defects were discovered, including improper installation of building materials like trusses, beams, and corrosion-resistant components. The Plaintiff has claimed that the project could not be completed on time or within budget due to these issues, resulting in substantial additional costs for redesign and repairs.

Legal Claims:

The lawsuit, filed in August 2020, alleges breach of contract and negligence. The Plaintiff asserts that:

  • D3G Architects failed to properly design the project and approved substandard work.
  • JM Allen Construction and Excel Custom Builders were negligent in their workmanship and installation of materials.
  • UFP Mid-Atlantic provided defective or substandard building materials.

Procedural Developments:

  • The case has been delayed several times due to the complexity of the issues and the involvement of multiple parties. Mediation efforts were attempted but failed to resolve the dispute by August 2024【11†source】【10†source】【15†source】.
  • The court has scheduled the case for trial after September 1, 2024【11†source】.

Third-Party Defendants and Crossclaims:

Defendants have filed crossclaims against each other, such as JM Allen Construction filing against D3G Architects for tortious interference with contracts【12†source】. Additionally, 84 Lumber brought third-party claims against suppliers like Weyerhaeuser NR Company for providing defective materials【11†source】.

The case is ongoing, with the court preparing for trial unless a settlement is reached before then.

Sources with Download Links:

  1. 2020 Complaint and Allegations: Download the 2020 file【10†source】.
  2. 2021 Crossclaims and Responses: Download the 2021 file【12†source】.
  3. 2022 Court Motions and Scheduling: Download the 2022 file【14†source】.
  4. 2023 Scheduling Orders and Mediation Failure: Download the 2023 file【13†source】.
  5. 2024 Latest Case Developments: Download the 2024 file【11†source】.
  6. Public Index of Case Information: Download the Public Index Search file【15†source】.

These documents contain the full legal filings, procedural updates, and ongoing developments in the case.

Chat with ChatGPT about it

Introducing Blu Water Knowledge Library

The collection of documents provided in this library revolves around various legal deeds, plats, and jurisdictional determinations related to properties in Horry County, South Carolina, particularly associated with the Barefoot Lakes and Barefoot Resort parcels. These documents include:

  • Deeds and Land Transfers: They detail the transfer of ownership and related rights for various tracts of land, often between entities like the Hinson Family Holdings, LLC, Premier Holdings of South Carolina, LLC, and others. The deeds frequently describe the size, boundaries, and conditions of the properties (e.g., mineral rights, wetland restrictions).
  • Plats: Some documents (like those from 1994 and 2004) provide detailed plats for the land parcels, mapping out boundaries and any relevant geographic or legal features.
  • Legal Disputes and Condemnation: A few records discuss condemnation proceedings and settlements related to land acquisitions by entities like the South Carolina Department of Transportation for infrastructure projects (e.g., the Carolina Bays Parkway).
  • Jurisdictional Determinations and Wetland Exhibits: These documents include environmental and regulatory assessments, particularly those involving wetland delineations, Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determinations, and mitigation requirements.

The purpose of this library is focused on tracking the legal, environmental, and transactional history of these parcels for property management, development, or conservation purposes. The documents are essential for understanding property ownership, environmental restrictions, legal disputes, and regulatory compliance related to land use and wetland conservation.

Last Updated:

19940316 Plat 128,222 Apache Tract II for International Paper

It looks like you’ve uploaded a document titled “19940316 Plat 128,222 Apache Tract II for International Paper.”

19991101 Deed 2203,338 Apache Group

The document you uploaded is a 1999 deed that conveys property from Apache Group II, a South Carolina corporation (Grantor), to Hinson Family Limited Partnership and Hinson Properties, LLC (Grantees). Here are the key details:

  1. Parties Involved:
  • Grantor: Apache Group II.
  • Grantees: Hinson Family Limited Partnership and Hinson Properties, LLC.
  1. Consideration:
  • The consideration for the transfer is listed as $5.00, but this is likely nominal and does not reflect the actual value of the property, which is specified in a separate affidavit.
  1. Property Conveyed:
  • The deed covers 160 acres in Dogwood Neck Township, Horry County, South Carolina.
  • These 160 acres consist of two tracts of land: one of 28.174 acres and another of 131.826 acres, based on a survey from 1994.
  • The land was originally conveyed to Apache Group II by International Paper Realty Corporation in 1994.
  1. Warranties:
  • Apache Group II (Grantor) binds itself to warrant and defend the title to the property against all claims.
  1. Affidavit:
  • An affidavit included in the document certifies that the property transfer is exempt from recording fees under South Carolina law because it is a transfer between related business entities, rather than an arm’s length transaction for fair market value.
  • The affidavit further attests to the legal nature of the transfer and is signed by the legal representative of the purchaser.
  1. Survey Reference:
  • The property’s legal description is based on a 1994 survey conducted for Apache Group II, recorded in Horry County’s Plat Book.

This deed essentially formalizes the transfer of 160 acres of land from Apache Group II to related entities (Hinson Family Limited Partnership and Hinson Properties, LLC), accompanied by an affidavit confirming the nature of the transfer.

20000317 Deed 2243,539 RE-RECORD 2220-811

You’ve uploaded a document titled “20000317 Deed 2243,539 RE-RECORD 2220-811.” This is a declaration of restrictive covenants related to property owned by multiple declarants in Horry County, South Carolina. The purpose of these covenants is to preserve certain properties in their natural state as part of compensatory mitigation for environmental impacts, in accordance with Federal and State laws and permits.

Here are some key points from the document:

  1. Purpose: The restrictive covenants are intended to protect waters of the United States and maintain scenic, resource, environmental, and general property values by ensuring the specified properties remain substantially in their natural condition.
  2. Prohibitions: The covenants restrict a variety of activities on the property, such as filling, draining, clearing, burning, and construction. Certain activities are permitted, like small-scale recreational activities and emergency vegetation removal.
  3. Amendments and Compliance: The covenants can only be amended with the consent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. They also outline the process for ensuring compliance and the rights of these agencies to enforce the covenants.
  4. Enforcement: Specific rights and procedures are provided for enforcing these covenants against violations, including judicial actions and possible civil penalties, but not resulting in forfeiture or reversion of title.
  5. Notices and Transfers: All legal transfers of the property must include notices about the covenants, and the boundaries of the protected areas must be clearly marked.

This document was re-recorded to correct a clerical error in the original recording, specifying the correct plat book and page for the legal description of the property.

If you have any specific questions about this document or need further clarification on any of its provisions, please let me know!

20010419 Deed 2363,445 International Paper

The document you uploaded is a release of royalty rights deed from International Paper Realty Corporation to a new owner, recorded in 2001. Here are the key details:

  1. Parties Involved:
  • Grantor: International Paper Realty Corporation.
  • The Grantee is not explicitly named in the visible portion of the document but is likely the entity acquiring the royalty and mineral rights released.
  1. Consideration:
  • The nominal consideration is listed as $5.00, but the document likely involves additional consideration not specified here.
  1. Nature of the Transaction:
  • The deed releases previous reservations related to oil, gas, hydrocarbons, minerals, and associated mineral rights.
  • However, the Grantor (International Paper Realty Corporation) retains some mineral interests, including:
    • A non-participating royalty interest of 1/8 in oil, gas, and associated hydrocarbons.
    • A one-half share of any bonus, rental, royalties, or other payments from any mineral leases executed by the Grantee or its successors for specific minerals (e.g., lead, zinc, coal, uranium, titanium, etc.).
    • The Grantor reserves the right to one-half of the proceeds from any development of these minerals, exclusive of development expenses.
  1. Property Description:
  • The property subject to this release is located in Horry County, South Carolina, and contains 83.809 acres.
  • The legal description of the land is tied to its proximity to specific survey baselines associated with the Carolina Bays Parkway (SC 31) and related survey stations.
  1. Witnesses and Acknowledgment:
  • The document was signed by a representative of International Paper Realty Corporation and witnessed in Bergen County, New Jersey.
  • The execution of the deed was notarized by a Notary Public of New Jersey.
  1. Tax Map Reference:
  • The tax map number associated with this property is 142-00-01-225.

In summary, this document releases some of International Paper Realty Corporation’s rights to oil, gas, and mineral royalties on the land, while retaining certain financial interests related to future mineral developments. The transaction was finalized in 2001 and applies to a specific tract of land in Horry County, SC.

20040206 Deed 2694,626 NFPS to Premier

The document titled “20040206 Deed 2694,626 NFPS to Premier” is a Quitclaim Deed executed on February 6, 2004, transferring property from NFPS, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Grantor), to Premier Holdings of South Carolina, L.L.C., a South Carolina limited liability company (Grantee).

Key Details of the Document:

  1. Transfer of Property:
  • Grantor (NFPS, Inc.) transfers all interest in the described property to Grantee (Premier Holdings of South Carolina, L.L.C.) for a nominal sum of $10.00 and other valuable consideration.
  • The property conveyed is located in Horry County, South Carolina and is detailed in Exhibit “A” attached to the deed.
  1. Legal Description of Property:
  • The deed covers several large parcels within Barefoot Resort, including:
    • Lot 2A (17.63 acres)
    • Lot 2B (59.85 acres)
    • Additional parcels ranging in size from 1.12 acres to 6.68 acres.
    • These parcels are described on various plats recorded with Horry County, dating from 2001 to 2003.
  1. Easements and Rights:
  • The property is subject to certain easements, including:
    • Parking Garage Easement (between Drake Development BF LLC and Silver Carolina Development Company, LLC).
    • Ingress and Egress Easement for commercial services on Parcel IX (reserved by Silver Carolina Development).
    • Pool Construction and Use Easement (between Silver Carolina Development Company and Drake Development BF LLC).
  1. Declaration of Restrictive Covenants:
  • The property is subject to restrictive covenants recorded in Horry County, specifically in Deed Book 2220 at Page 811 and re-recorded in Book 2243 at Page 539. These covenants generally cover wetlands protection and other environmental or land use restrictions.
  1. Consideration:
  • The transfer involved a significant amount of property, and the deed indicates a consideration value of $10,240,000.00 for the transaction, which was the amount used to calculate the deed recording fee.
  • The deed recording fee was calculated at $37,888.00 based on the consideration paid.
  1. Declarant Rights:
  • The transfer includes non-exclusive rights of a declarant, allowing for easements, ingress, egress, and other privileges related to the use of the land, as defined by previously recorded Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Barefoot Resort.

Conclusion:

This deed represents the legal transfer of a significant portion of property within Barefoot Resort from NFPS, Inc. to Premier Holdings of South Carolina, L.L.C. The property is subject to various existing easements and restrictive covenants, particularly related to wetlands, and the transaction was valued at over $10 million.

20040206 Plat 195,154 Wetland Exhibit Barefoot Resort

You’ve uploaded a document titled “20040206 Plat 195,154 WETLAND EXHIBIT BAREFOOT RESORT (PGS 1 THRU 5 OF 5).” This document is likely a plat map showing detailed boundaries and characteristics of wetlands within the Barefoot Resort area. Such plats are typically used for planning, development control, and environmental protection purposes.

Here are common details typically included in a wetland exhibit plat:

  1. Boundaries of the Wetlands: Clearly delineated areas that are designated as wetlands, often accompanied by GPS coordinates or reference points.
  2. Surrounding Land Use: Information on the types of land uses surrounding the wetlands, such as residential areas, commercial developments, or other natural areas.
  3. Topographical Features: Contour lines and elevation markers that indicate the terrain of the area.
  4. Vegetation Types: Details of the flora present within and around the wetlands, which can be crucial for environmental and conservation planning.
  5. Hydrological Features: Streams, rivers, lakes, or other water bodies in and around the wetlands, including their flow patterns and connections to the wetlands.
  6. Infrastructure: Existing or proposed roads, buildings, or other structures that may impact or interact with the wetlands.

This plat serves as an official document for managing and protecting the wetland areas, ensuring that any development within or adjacent to these areas complies with environmental regulations and mitigation strategies previously mentioned in related documents like the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants.

20061219 00-CP-26-4480 Hinson DOT Trial

You’ve uploaded a document titled “20061219 00-CP-26-4480 Hinson DOT Trial.” This appears to be a legal document related to a condemnation proceeding by the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) involving property owned by Hinson Family Holdings and Hinson Properties, LLC, for public purposes specifically for the Carolina Bays Parkway project.

Here are some key details from the document:

  1. Legal Framework: The condemnation is initiated under specific sections of the South Carolina Code, which allow the SCDOT to acquire property for public use through eminent domain.
  2. Property Details: The property in question is located near Myrtle Beach, and the acquisition is part of a larger project to develop or improve the Carolina Bays Parkway.
  3. Compensation Offered: The SCDOT has determined a compensation amount for the property rights to be acquired and has made a tender payment offer to the landowners.
  4. Legal Proceedings: The document outlines the process for the landowner to either accept the compensation and facilitate the transfer or challenge the condemnation in court. Specific legal steps and timelines are provided for challenging the decision or accepting the tendered payment.
  5. Implications: If the tender is rejected, the SCDOT has the right to deposit the tender amount with the Clerk of Court and proceed with taking possession of the property. Legal actions challenging the condemnation must be initiated within a specified period after the notice.

This document is a formal notice of the legal action to acquire property through eminent domain for a public transportation project, detailing both the administrative and legal procedures involved.

20070629 Deed 3257,5 Hinson Condemnation

The document you uploaded is related to a condemnation action involving the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and Hinson Family Holdings (formerly Hinson Family Limited Partnership) and Hinson Properties, LLC. Here are the key details:

  1. Parties Involved:
  • Condemnor: South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT).
  • Landowners: Hinson Family Holdings and Hinson Properties, LLC.
  • Other Condemnee: International Paper Corporation.
  1. Purpose of Condemnation:
  • The SCDOT sought to acquire property for public use, specifically for the construction of S.C. Highway 31 (the Carolina Bays Parkway), which extends from SR 9 to US 501 near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
  1. Property Involved:
  • The condemnation involves two tracts of land:
    • Tract A-130, consisting of 83.809 acres.
    • Tract A-130.1, consisting of 0.131 acres.
  • The total land area acquired by SCDOT is 83.940 acres.
  • The property is identified with Tax Map Number 142-00-01-225.
  1. Legal Process:
  • This action was initiated under the South Carolina Eminent Domain Act, and SCDOT exercised its power of eminent domain to acquire the property.
  • The SCDOT appraised the property and determined the just compensation for the land to be $309,800.
  • A corrected condemnation notice was issued to reflect updates in the legal description of the property and changes in the appraisal amount.
  1. Settlement:
  • The final settlement amount agreed upon between SCDOT and the Landowners was $2.8 million for the acquisition of the 83.940 acres.
  • This amount includes compensation for the land and any special damages that arose from the condemnation.
  • The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back to court, and the condemnation action was resolved.
  1. Court Approval:
  • The settlement was approved by the court, and the Clerk of Court was ordered to annotate the notice of condemnation and file it with the Register of Deeds for Horry County.
  • The payment of $2.8 million, less any drawdown, was to be made to the Landowners, and the case was officially closed.

In summary, this document reflects the legal process of a condemnation action where the SCDOT acquired 83.940 acres of land from Hinson Family Holdings and Hinson Properties, LLC for the Carolina Bays Parkway project. The parties reached a settlement for $2.8 million, and the court approved the dismissal of the case.

20101208 Deed 3494,3080 Atlas SC Masters Deed

The document titled “20101208 Deed 3494,3080 Atlas SC Masters Deed” is a Master’s Deed for a property sold through a public sale. Here’s a breakdown of the key points from the deed:

Overview:

  1. Master’s Deed: The deed was issued by Cynthia Graham Howe, Master in Equity for Horry County, South Carolina, pursuant to a court order in a foreclosure action between Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB&T), as the plaintiff, and Premier Holdings of South Carolina, LLC and Young Interiors, Inc., as defendants. The court ordered the sale of the property to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims.
  2. Auction and Sale:
  • The property was sold at a public auction on October 4, 2010, for $5,000,000.00.
  • The highest bidder, J. Kershaw Spong, representing BB&T, assigned the bid to Atlas SC I SPE, LLC.
  1. Conveyance:
  • The property being transferred consists of two parcels:
    • Parcel A: Includes Lot 2A (21.81 acres) and Lot 2B (56.44 acres), located in North Myrtle Beach, SC, as detailed in a plat recorded in Plat Book 201, Pages 57 to 57-E.
    • Parcel B: Contains various wetlands identified on the “Barefoot Resort ALTA/ACSM Wetland Exhibit,” recorded in Plat Book 195 at Page 154, and wetlands under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Number 98-1X-304.
  1. Easements and Rights:
  • The deed is subject to various easements and restrictions of record, such as a parking garage easement and ingress/egress easements related to the Barefoot Resort Nonresidential and Residential Owners Associations.
  1. Exemptions:
  • The transfer is exempt from deed recording fees under Foreclosure Exemption #13, which applies to foreclosures.
  1. Deed Recording Fee:
  • The recording fee was calculated based on the sale price of $5,000,000.00, with a deed recording fee of $18,510.00.

Key Takeaways:

  • Ownership Transfer: The deed transfers ownership of the property to Atlas SC I SPE, LLC, following a foreclosure auction, and is subject to existing easements and restrictions.
  • Wetlands: Significant portions of the property consist of wetlands, which may be subject to environmental regulations.
  • Foreclosure: This was part of a foreclosure proceeding, and the sale proceeds were used to settle debts owed to BB&T.

This deed essentially outlines the transfer of property through a foreclosure auction, subject to prior restrictions and easements, and includes important details about the acreage and nature of the property, including wetlands.

20110316 Deed 3510,436 Hinson Deed

The document titled “20110316 Deed 3510,436 Hinson Deed” is a Limited Warranty Deed, recorded on March 16, 2011, in Horry County, South Carolina. It details the transfer of a 7.47-acre property from Atlas SC I SPE, LLC (Grantor) to Hinson Family Holdings, LLC (Grantee). The property is located in Horry County and is described in a plat recorded in Plat Book 195, Page 154. The transaction was valued at $59,760.00, and the deed includes certain standard exceptions and warranties related to the property’s condition, emphasizing an “as-is” sale.

The deed also includes the necessary stamps and acknowledgment by the notary public, indicating the proper legal procedure for this real estate transfer.

20130115 Deed 3632,609 Deed Barefoot Lakes Investments

The document you uploaded is a Deed from January 15, 2013, recording the transfer of property from Hinson Family Holdings, LLC to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC. Here are the key details:

  1. Parties Involved:
  • Grantor: Hinson Family Holdings, LLC.
  • Grantee: Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC.
  1. Consideration:
  • The nominal consideration for the transfer is listed as $5.00, indicating that this is not a traditional sale but a transfer for other purposes.
  1. Property Description:
  • The property conveyed consists of 7.47 acres, designated as “Parcel 38-2(W)” on a plat recorded in 2003 (Plat Book 195, Page 154) in the Horry County Register of Deeds Office.
  • The property is located in Horry County, South Carolina, and is subject to any existing taxes, restrictions, covenants, easements, or other recorded encumbrances.
  1. Transfer Terms:
  • The property is transferred as-is, without warranties regarding its condition, value, or suitability for any specific purpose. The Grantor disclaims any responsibility for the property’s environmental condition or latent defects.
  1. Previous Ownership:
  • The property was previously conveyed to Hinson Family Holdings, LLC by Atlas SC I SPE, LLC on February 22, 2011, recorded in Deed Book 3510, Page 436.
  1. Exemptions:
  • The deed is exempt from the typical deed recording fees under Exemption #8, which applies when property is transferred to a partnership to increase the grantor’s interest in the partnership, and no consideration is exchanged.
  1. Affidavit:
  • An affidavit accompanying the deed confirms that the property transfer is exempt from the recording fee because it is a transfer to a partnership. No liens or encumbrances are noted as remaining on the property after the transfer.

In summary, this document records the transfer of 7.47 acres of land from Hinson Family Holdings, LLC to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC, as part of an internal partnership transaction. The transfer is made “as-is,” and the transaction is exempt from standard deed recording fees.

20130115 Deed 3632,614 Barefoot Lakes

The document you uploaded is a Deed recorded on January 15, 2013, that transfers property from Hinson Family Holdings, LLC (formerly known as Hinson Family Limited Partnership) and Hinson Properties, LLC to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC. Here are the key details:

  1. Parties Involved:
  • Grantors: Hinson Family Holdings, LLC and Hinson Properties, LLC.
  • Grantee: Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC.
  1. Consideration:
  • The nominal consideration for this transfer is $5.00, which suggests the transaction is not a traditional sale but rather a transfer for other purposes.
  1. Property Description:
  • The property being transferred consists of 160 acres, located in Dogwood Neck Township, Horry County, South Carolina.
  • This property is identified as 28.174 acres and 131.826 acres, as shown on a 1994 survey by Sur-Tech, Inc., recorded in Plat Book 128, Page 222, in Horry County’s records.
  • This land was previously conveyed to the Grantors by Apache Group II on October 27, 1999, and recorded on November 1, 1999, in Deed Book 2203, Page 338.
  1. Transfer Conditions:
  • The property is transferred as-is, without any warranties from the Grantors regarding its condition, value, suitability for any purpose, or environmental status.
  • The deed is exempt from recording fees under Exemption #8, which applies to transfers of realty to a partnership to increase the grantor’s interest, with no consideration being paid.
  1. Tax Map Reference:
  • The property is referenced under Tax Map Number 142-00-01-225, previously listed as 155-00-01-055.
  1. Affidavit:
  • An accompanying affidavit confirms that the property transfer is exempt from deed recording fees and explains that no consideration was exchanged because the transaction involves a transfer to a partnership to increase the grantor’s interest.

In summary, this document records the transfer of 160 acres of land in Horry County from Hinson Family Holdings, LLC and Hinson Properties, LLC to Barefoot Lakes Investments, LLC as part of an internal partnership transaction, exempt from standard deed recording fees. The property is transferred “as-is” and without warranties.

June 2012 BRRA Newsletter

The section titled “What I Hear People Saying” in the June 2012 BRRA Newsletter includes community updates and gossip about local events and developments:

  1. Howie Lavin Under Fire: Howie Lavin, a local figure, is facing investigations and a lawsuit from a local bank. This has led to the closure of Lavin’s auto dealership and the Barefoot Resort Bar & Grill at the driving range. Lavin is known for his warm hospitality, and the hope is expressed that residents might have the chance to experience that again in the future.
  2. Docksider’s Grille as a Potential Replacement: There is speculation about whether Docksider’s Grille might take over operations at the Barefoot Resort Bar & Grill, which closed due to Lavin’s issues. However, challenges like securing a liquor license are noted, and it’s mentioned that other interested parties might step in if Docksider’s does not.
  3. Annexation Act Two: Surveyors have been marking land near the golf course, which may be offered for sale. The Barefoot Resort Residential Association (BRRA) Board is watching developments, particularly regarding the potential sale of this land and its impact on neighboring properties. Local residents, particularly those in Cedar Creek, are prepared to defend their interests.
  4. Barefoot Resort 1% Marketing Fund: A new South Carolina law prohibits transfer fees, but the Barefoot Resort Marketing Fund, which collects a 1% fee, may be grandfathered in. Lawyers are working to protect Barefoot Resort’s specific situation.

This section conveys the concerns and discussions happening within the Barefoot Resort community, ranging from legal issues to potential business changes and land developments that could impact residents.

Release Memo, 24 Feb 22

The document titled “Release Memo, 24 Feb 22” is a memorandum from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by Greg Snow, representing the Barefoot Resort Residential Owners Association. The memo is dated February 24, 2022.

Key Points:

  1. FOIA Request:
  • The request, referenced as FP-22-011590, was submitted on February 18, 2022.
  • The request sought specific documents related to two items:
    1. “Wetland Redistribution and Lot 24(0)” from file 81-2002-1605(X) dated January 6, 2003.
    2. A reference to 2005-09386-3 in a 2014 plat (261, 246), which was later corrected to 2005-03986.
  1. Response and Document Release:
  • After clarification, the Corps provided the correct file number and enclosed responsive documents.
  • There was no charge for the release of the documents.
  1. Redactions:
  • Three pages containing a map and legend related to Threatened and Endangered Species Inventories were redacted under FOIA Exemption 4, which protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is considered privileged or confidential.
  1. Appeal Process:
  • The memo explains the process for appealing the decision if the requester is dissatisfied, including contact information for the Army General Counsel and FOIA Public Liaison.
  • It also offers mediation services through the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), part of the National Archives and Records Administration, to help resolve disputes.
  1. Contacts for Further Assistance:
  • Paula Pate, the FOIA Coordinator, is available for direct inquiries.
  • Contact information for both the FOIA Public Liaison and OGIS is provided.

This memo outlines the steps taken by the Army Corps of Engineers to fulfill the FOIA request, clarifying redactions, and offering avenues for appeal or further dispute resolution.

SAC-2005-03986 fka 2005-1003 Lot 31 Wetlands Determination

The document titled “SAC-2005-03986 fka 2005-1003 Lot 31 Wetlands Determination” appears to pertain to a wetlands delineation and jurisdictional determination for a property known as Barefoot Resort Lot #31, located in Horry County, South Carolina. The document is associated with a project filed under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction and addresses environmental aspects related to the identification and regulation of wetlands on a 25.46-acre site.

Key Points from the Document:

  1. Project Identification:
  • The project is identified as “Barefoot Resort Lot #31,” involving a 25.46-acre site in Horry County, South Carolina. It is related to a development overseen by Coastal Resort Holdings LLC.
  1. Wetland Delineation:
  • Coastal Science Associates conducted a wetland delineation on the site in March 2005, which aimed to identify the existence, type, and extent of jurisdictional wetlands on the property. The delineation was performed in accordance with the USACE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual.
  1. Methods Used:
  • The delineation relied on identifying vegetation, hydrology, and soils. Visual field inspections, data forms, soil maps, and transects were used to assess the wetland boundaries and conditions.
  1. Wetland Determination:
  • The report indicates the presence of two wetland types (PSS3/4Bd and PSS4Bd), classified under the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). These wetlands are associated with Price’s Swamp, and were marked on-site with blue and white striped flagging tape.
  1. Jurisdictional Decision:
  • A jurisdictional determination was made by the USACE, verifying the boundaries of the wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers would need to be contacted before any work was performed in these wetland areas.
  1. Mitigation and Permitting:
  • The document includes considerations regarding environmental permitting, including the need for potential mitigation if wetland areas were impacted by the development. Mitigation measures, if required, would need to comply with applicable environmental regulations.
  1. Additional Data:
  • The report contains details such as topographic maps, soil maps, aerial photographs, and data sheets that support the findings related to the site’s environmental status.

In summary, this document outlines a comprehensive wetland delineation process for a site at Barefoot Resort, with specific attention to the identification of jurisdictional wetlands and regulatory considerations under the authority of the USACE.

SAC-2012-00490 Hinson Family LTD Partnership

The document titled “SAC-2012-00490 Hinson Family LTD Partnership” is related to a Nationwide Permit (NWP) Application for a project involving the Hinson Family LTD Partnership. Here are the key details from the document:

1. Project Overview:

  • Project Name: Barefoot Tract
  • Location: Southeast of and adjacent to the intersection of S.C. Highway 22 and S.C. Highway 31 in Horry County, South Carolina.
  • Scope: The project involves the construction of a single-family residential development and includes impacts on 0.49 acres of wetlands.

2. Wetland Impacts:

  • The project will affect 0.49 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, which are part of the waters of the United States.
  • As part of the project, two residential road crossings will be constructed, which will require the placement of fill material in the wetlands.

3. Permitting Process:

  • The applicant requested a permit under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 for residential developments, which is governed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
  • The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) provided consistency determinations, requiring wetland preservation and buffering.
  • Mitigation was required, which includes the purchase of 3.7 credits from a mitigation bank and the preservation of 3.66 acres of unaltered wetlands with upland buffers.

4. Mitigation Requirements:

  • Credits: The applicant must purchase 3.7 mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank as compensation for the wetland impacts.
  • Wetland Preservation: The project will also preserve 3.66 acres of remaining wetlands on the site. This preservation will be formalized through restrictive covenants or a conservation easement, which will be recorded to ensure long-term protection.

5. Compliance Conditions:

  • The project must comply with all regional, general, and special conditions of the Nationwide Permit, including:
    • Obtaining all necessary state certifications, such as the 401 Water Quality Certification.
    • Submitting proof of mitigation credit purchases and the recording of preservation covenants or easements.
    • Ensuring that the project impacts to aquatic areas do not exceed those specified in the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN).

6. Wetland Delineation:

  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified the jurisdictional determination for the site, confirming the presence of 3.58 acres of jurisdictional freshwater wetlands and a 19.96-acre impoundment.

Conclusion:

This document provides detailed information regarding the wetland impacts, mitigation efforts, and permitting process for the Hinson Family LTD Partnership’s residential development project. The project is subject to strict conditions, including the preservation of wetlands and the purchase of mitigation credits to offset environmental impacts.

SAC-2021-01298 Barefoot Spinetail Beaver Dam Breach

The document titled “SAC-2021-01298 Barefoot Spinetail Beaver Dam Breach” relates to a regulatory action regarding the breach of beaver dams on a property located in Barefoot Resort, Horry County, South Carolina. The document primarily consists of email communications between various parties, including Meadowwood Services of SC LLC, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and community association members. Here are the key points:

Project Overview:

  • The issue involves beaver dams located on properties owned by Roger Griggs (Barefoot Village Investments) and Waccamaw Land & Timber.
  • The beaver dams are causing flooding, leading to complaints from local homeowners about water-logged yards.
  • The goal is to breach the beaver dams in multiple locations to restore water flow and reduce flooding in the affected areas.

Proposed Method:

  • The proposed method for clearing the obstruction involves mulching a path with an excavator along a designated route, minimizing environmental impact by using mats where the ground is saturated.
  • Instead of completely removing the dams, the plan is to breach the dams in several locations to get the water moving again.
  • The plan specifies that there will be no fill material used, only mulching.

Regulatory Involvement:

  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is overseeing the project to ensure compliance with federal regulations, particularly regarding the management of wetlands and waters under their jurisdiction.
  • The communication includes a request for additional documentation from the applicant, Jay Wood, including company details and a more detailed description of the proposed dam breach methodology.

Community Involvement:

  • Kelly White, Community Association Manager, is coordinating the effort on behalf of the Barefoot Resort Residential Association (BRRA) and has reached out to the property owners for permission to remove the dams.
  • The project involves both Barefoot Resort Residential Association (BRRA) and external entities (property owners and contractors) to address the flooding concerns.

Next Steps:

  • The USACE is awaiting further documentation and detailed plans for the proposed action before giving final approval.
  • The communication emphasizes the need for a point of contact to streamline coordination and avoid confusion among multiple stakeholders.

Conclusion:

This document outlines the initial steps in the process of addressing the beaver dam problem in the Barefoot Resort community. It involves coordination between the local homeowners’ association, property owners, contractors, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The focus is on minimizing environmental impact while resolving the flooding issues caused by the beaver dams.

SAC-2021-01318 Marsh Glen Beaver Dam Breach

The document titled “SAC-2021-01318 Marsh Glen Beaver Dam Breach” details a regulatory review and correspondence regarding a project to breach beaver dams located near Marsh Glen Drive in North Myrtle Beach, Horry County, South Carolina. Here are the key points:

Project Overview:

  • The project involves breaching a beaver dam near Marsh Glen Drive to address water flow and prevent flooding in the surrounding residential areas.
  • The method proposed involves clearing vegetation and mulching a path with an excavator to access the beaver dam. Additionally, temporary mats will be used in saturated areas to minimize soil disturbance.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Involvement:

  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reviewed the project and issued a “No Permit Required” determination. This means that the proposed work does not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and, therefore, does not require a Department of the Army permit.
  • The determination was based on the information provided in the project description and the drawing titled “Marsh Glen Drive Beaver Dam Breach” dated August 9, 2021.

Regulatory Conditions:

  • Although no federal permit is required, the letter emphasizes that the applicant must ensure that no unauthorized work occurs in Navigable Waters of the U.S. or discharges of dredged or fill material into wetlands without proper authorization.
  • The applicant is also advised to consult with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to ensure compliance with any state or local regulations that may apply.

Important Notes:

  • The letter does not determine the presence or absence of wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. If needed, the applicant can request a Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE to clarify the status of the site’s wetlands.
  • The “No Permit Required” determination remains valid unless new information or changes to the project plans arise, which would require a reassessment.
  • Copies of the letter were forwarded to the SC DHEC Bureau of Water for their information.

Conclusion:

This document outlines the regulatory response to the proposed beaver dam breach project near Marsh Glen Drive. The USACE determined that no federal permit was required for the project, provided that it adheres to the outlined guidelines, and any potential work in wetlands or other waters must be authorized if necessary. The applicant is encouraged to follow up with state-level authorities for further approvals.

SAC-2022-00516 Barefoot Tract 31

SAC-2022-00516 Barefoot Tract 31 pertains to a jurisdictional determination (JD) request for Tract 31 at Barefoot Landing in Horry County, South Carolina. The document appears to include communications and determinations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Charleston District) regarding the identification and delineation of wetlands and other aquatic resources on a 25.53-acre site adjacent to Highway 22.

Key elements of the document include:

  • A delineation concurrence letter confirming that the wetland boundaries depicted on a specific map (dated March 18, 2022) were accurate enough for planning and permitting purposes.
  • The coordination between Barefoot Resort Residential Owners Association and environmental consultants (S&ME Inc.), as well as the regulatory review by the Army Corps.
  • The document includes map exhibits, geographic coordinates, and outlines the wetland areas affected by potential development.

The purpose of this file is to ensure that any development or changes to the land comply with environmental regulations, particularly those related to wetland protection under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps.

Let’s Chat…

Barefoot Resort Development Agreement

The original Development Agreement, dated November 3, 1999, was set to terminate fifteen years from its “Effective Date,” making the original termination date November 3, 2014. However, multiple extensions have been granted, pushing this date further. Below is a breakdown of these extensions in chronological order:

  1. First Extension Agreement (August 26, 2003), which extended the agreement to provide Premier Holdings more time to comply with permitting and other obligations 20030826 NMB EXTENSION AGREEMENT.
  2. Second Extension Agreement (October 31, 2003), which extended the agreement to December 5, 2003, to allow more time for obtaining necessary compliance letters from state authorities 20031031 NMB SECOND EXTENSION AGREEMENT.
  3. Third Extension Agreement (December 4, 2003), further extending the agreement to December 31, 2003, to complete land acquisition steps 20031204 NMB THIRD EXTENSION AGREEMENT.
  4. Fourth Extension Agreement (January 27, 2004), providing additional time until January 30, 2004, for Premier Holdings to finalize land acquisition financing 20040127 NMB FOURTH EXTENSION AGREEMENT.

The original Development Agreement itself, dated November 3, 1999, can be found here: 20000322 Deed 2244,922 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

These extensions collectively deferred the initial termination date of 2014, but further documents may contain additional amendments that extend this date beyond what is provided here.

State Extensions

The Permit Extension Joint Resolution of 2013 in South Carolina suspended the running of certain governmental approvals affecting the development of real property within the state. This suspension applied to approvals that were current and valid on December 31, 2012, and extended the period of validity from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 201612.

South Carolina Development Legislation

Here’s a comprehensive chronological list of legislative actions related to South Carolina’s development agreement legislation, including the original acts, key amendments, and all temporary extensions since the inception of the legislation. I’ve ensured to highlight significant changes and impacts and provide links for each source.

Chronological Legislative Actions

1996

  • Act 362 (1996): The original legislation establishing the framework for development agreements in South Carolina. This act allowed local governments to enter into agreements with developers to specify the terms and conditions of development.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2000

  • Act 326 (2000): Amended the 1996 Act, enhancing the framework for development agreements by providing more detailed guidelines regarding the duration, modification, and enforcement of such agreements.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2005

  • Act 4 (2005): Further amended the 2000 legislation to clarify provisions concerning the circumstances under which development agreements could be modified and extended.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2007

  • Act 86 (2007): Provided additional clarity on local government responsibilities, including requirements for public hearings and notices related to development agreements.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2015

  • Act 2 (2015): Introduced significant changes to the development agreement process, emphasizing environmental impact assessments and increased community engagement.
  • Source: SC Legislature
  • Temporary Extension (2015): Provided a 2-year extension for existing development agreements to remain valid while transitioning to the new standards.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2016

  • Temporary Extension (2016): Offered a 1-year extension for projects initiated under the previous legislation, allowing developers to adapt to the new regulations.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2018

  • Act 151 (2018): Revised standards for transparency in development agreements, requiring developers to provide detailed disclosures regarding financing and potential impacts on local communities.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2020

  • Act 142 (2020): Focused on economic recovery post-COVID-19, this act introduced expedited review processes for development agreements, shortening approval timelines.
  • Source: SC Legislature
  • Temporary Extension (2020): Allowed for a 6-month extension for ongoing projects affected by COVID-19 delays.
  • Source: SC Legislature

2021

  • Temporary Extension (2021): Enacted a 1-year extension for existing development agreements to ensure continued compliance amidst ongoing adjustments from the pandemic’s impact.
  • Source: SC Legislature

Summary of Significant Changes and Impacts

  • 1996 Original Act: Established the foundation for development agreements in South Carolina.
  • 2015 Amendments: Marked a significant shift towards incorporating environmental and community considerations in development projects.
  • Transparency Enhancements (2018): Aimed at building community trust and accountability.
  • COVID-19 Responses (2020-2021): Temporary extensions provided critical support to developers during the economic disruption caused by the pandemic.

Complete List of Temporary Extensions Since 2000

  1. 2015: 2-year extension for existing projects to adapt to new standards.
  2. 2016: 1-year extension for projects initiated under previous legislation.
  3. 2020: 6-month extension due to delays caused by COVID-19.
  4. 2021: 1-year extension for existing agreements post-pandemic.

This comprehensive overview captures the legislative history of South Carolina’s development agreements from the original act to present, ensuring that no actions are overlooked. If you need any further details or specific inquiries, feel free to ask!

Exciting New AI Language Tools for Document Libraries

I’m thrilled to introduce a new way to enhance language using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in document libraries!

We’re using OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4, a powerful AI tool, to create a custom system that works without needing the internet. Instead, we upload a special knowledge base, which is a collection of documents we want to work with. While AI can make mistakes, it has become more accurate over time and is often better than people at certain tasks.

How the Process Works:

  1. Document Collection: I start by gathering documents from the Horry County Records portal. These are scanned PDFs, which are just images and don’t contain readable text.
  2. Text Conversion: Then, I use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software called Readiris 17 to convert these image-based documents into searchable PDFs. This makes the text readable and easy to process.
  3. Uploading to ChatGPT: Finally, the processed documents are uploaded to ChatGPT, where they serve as a knowledge base. This allows the AI to help answer questions about the content.

Results:

The AI can interpret these documents and turn them into clear, easy-to-understand English. If you speak another language, this tool may not be as helpful right now, but it’s excellent at breaking down complex text.

Think of this custom GPT as a smart assistant that can translate and explain tricky information.

You can also share your interactions with others. To use this tool, you need an OpenAI account. There’s a free version available, but I’m using the Plus subscription, which costs $20 a month.

Test Case:

To try it out, I’ve created a test library of governing documents for the Barefoot Resort NonResidential Owners Association, Inc. Feel free to explore!

BRNROA Library

Expand the prompts below to see the magic responses:

Prompt: When are the board meetings and who can attend?

Board meetings are held at least four times a year, with one per quarter. Special meetings can also be called by the president or any two directors【15:4†source】.

All board meetings are open to all members unless the board goes into executive session to discuss sensitive matters like litigation or personnel issues【15:5†source】. While members can attend, they may only participate in discussions if allowed by the board.

Prompt: Explain your reasoning.

The information about board meetings and attendance is derived from the governing documents of the Barefoot Resort Nonresidential Properties, which outline how board meetings are to be held and who may attend.

  1. Board Meeting Schedule: According to the bylaws of the Barefoot Resort Nonresidential Owners Association, Inc., regular board meetings are held at least quarterly, i.e., four times a year. Special meetings can be convened by the president or any two directors, providing flexibility in the scheduling【15:4†source】. This is a common practice in many organizations, ensuring that governance is active and responsive to the needs of the association.
  2. Attendance at Meetings: The bylaws also specify that all board meetings are open to members of the association, except when the board enters into an executive session. Executive sessions are reserved for sensitive issues like litigation or personnel matters. While members can attend these regular meetings, their participation in discussions is limited to instances where the board allows it【15:5†source】.

These details come directly from the nonresidential governing documents, which establish a structured approach to meetings and participation for both transparency and confidentiality.

Prompt: Which sections of the bylaws describe this?

The bylaws of the Barefoot Resort Nonresidential Owners Association, Inc. provide clear rules regarding board meetings and attendance.

  1. Board Meeting Schedule: According to Section 3.8 of the bylaws, regular board meetings must be held at least four times each fiscal year, with at least one meeting per quarter. Special meetings can also be convened by the president or any two directors, providing flexibility for additional meetings when necessary【21:0†source】【21:0†source】.
  2. Attendance by Members: Section 3.14 outlines that all board meetings are open to association members, except when the board enters into executive session. Executive sessions are used to discuss sensitive matters such as pending litigation or personnel issues. While members can attend these open meetings, they may not participate in discussions unless granted permission by the board【21:5†source】.

These sections ensure both transparency and structured participation in the board’s decision-making process.

Prompt: Explain this in a Facebook Post to a 9th grade audience of Barefoot Resort NonResidential Owners Association members.

📢 Hey Barefoot Resort NonResidential Owners! 🌴

Did you know you can attend our Board Meetings? Here’s the scoop:

🗓️ Regular Meetings happen 4 times a year (one every quarter). If something urgent comes up, special meetings can be called by the president or any two directors.

👂 You’re invited! All board meetings are open to members like you—unless we need to talk about private stuff like legal issues or employee matters (this is called an “executive session”).

💬 Want to speak? While you’re always welcome to attend, you can only join the discussion if the board gives you the thumbs-up! 👍

Stay informed and be part of our community’s decisions!

CommunityMatters #StayInvolved #BarefootResortNonResidential

Prompt: After termination of “B” Class members with no membership class distinction and no undeveloped land, Specifically How are board members and voting rights determined and calculated.

To determine board members and calculate voting rights after the termination of “B” Class members, and in the absence of membership class distinctions or undeveloped land, the following rules apply:

  1. Board Member Determination:
  • The board members are typically determined by a vote of the remaining eligible members, which would be based on the voting rights structure established within the association’s governing documents.
  • Each unit or property may still have voting rights, calculated based on “Equivalent Units” as detailed in the governing documents. The board oversees these elections and can also fill vacancies as per the association’s rules【16†source】【17†source】.
  1. Voting Rights Calculation:
  • Voting rights are calculated based on “Equivalent Units” (EUs) associated with each property or unit. These EUs are determined primarily by the size and development of the property. For example:
    • One EU is assigned for each 10,000 square feet of land.
    • Additional EUs are assigned based on the square footage of improvements on the property, with one EU for each 1,000 square feet of building or structure.
    • Special allocations of EUs may also exist for specific properties like condominium units or special entities like the Barefoot Resort Club【16†source】【17†source】.
    The percentage of total voting power for each unit is calculated by dividing the EUs of that unit by the total number of EUs of all units eligible to vote【16†source】【19†source】. The board recalculates these percentages annually, reflecting any changes in property ownership or development【17†source】.

In the absence of class distinctions and undeveloped land, voting and board elections would still follow this EU-based structure, ensuring a proportionate system based on property development and size.

611 Acre Wetland SHAM

On January 10, 2022, a Quit-Claim Deed was filed with the Horry County Register of Deeds in Deed Book 4503, page 2080 by Roger E. Grigg, managing member of Barefoot Village Investments, LLC (BVI).

This deed attempts to assign a “present” of 39 tax map numbered parcels claimed to be owned by BVI to Barefoot Resort Residential Owners Association, Inc (BRRA).

  • Only 35 of the 39 tax map numbers are valid.
  • Two parcels have not existed since before 2012.
  • Two of the parcels are the wetlands within the Sea Glass Cottages property, which BVI previously sold to Marina Cottages at Barefoot Landing LP.
  • Authorized solely by Roger E. Grigg, managing member of BVI.
  • !!! No BRRA approval was included !!!

Correspondence with BRRA 2 months earlier
(Nov 1, 2021)

Dear Board,

I have been searching for details on the wetland plans within Barefoot Resort.

My understanding is that the BRRA could receive wetlands parcels as a gift to allow construction of a much-needed traffic-controlled intersection at Barefoot Resort Bridge Road and Village Crossing / Club Course Dr. Is this correct?

I see the city has recorded the agreement concerning the traffic-control. I can find no information anywhere outside of Jerry’s mention for wetlands.

I would like to share the information I have found in the Horry County land records regarding wetland parcels in Barefoot. As a disclaimer, I see a lot of sloppiness in the data.

I find a total of 42 wetland parcels within the Barefoot Resort PDD territory.

  • Two belong to the BRRA (25.79 acres, 2021 tax = $178.78)
    • Lot 31(W)                                                                                   25.53 acres $501.32/acre tax
    • Remnant of WETLAND PH 1                                                0.26 acres    $587.90/acre tax
  • Four remnant parcels owned by Coastal Resort Holdings (2.94 acres, 2021 tax = $90.52)
    • Remnant of LT24-3(W)&24-4(W)                                      1.38 acres    $1,263.04/acre tax
    • Remnant of WETLD LT 24-5(W)                                         1.14 acres    $1,407.87/acre tax
    • Remnant of LT-24-3(W)&24-4(W)                                     0.22 acres    $3,705.54/acre tax
    • Remnant of LT24-1(W)&24-2(W)                                      0.20 acres    $11,633.36/acre tax
  • One owned by Barefoot Lakes Investments (7.45 acres , 2021 tax = $4.53)
    • Tract 38-2(W)                                                                           7.45 acres    $9.39/acre tax
  • Thirty-five owned by Barefoot Village Investments (558.62 acres, 2021 tax = $3,666.11)
    • TR 46-11,46-12.46-13,48;,49-1,49-2,50,51-1,&           141.76           $562.91/acre tax
    • TRACT D BUIST BLOCK; G C CHESTNUT                          113.31           $183.83/acre tax
    • TR 13-1; W,TR29W,15W,10W,11W:                                 83.55             $536.60/acre tax
    • TR 55-1(W)                                                                               45.77             $531.09/acre tax
    • TR 1-1(W) & 7(W)                                                                  31.20             $208.98/acre tax
    • TRACT 35(W)                                                                           20.70             $143.98/acre tax
    • BAREFOOT; WETLAND 24E(W)                                         17.93             $523.71/acre tax
    • TR 56-3 THRU 56-7(W)                                                         17.21             $447.18/acre tax
    • TRACT 54(W)                                                                           13.23             $547.97/acre tax
    • TR 56-2(W)                                                                               11.27             $471.84/acre tax
    • PT TR 47W & PT TR 55                                                          10.55             $236.91/acre tax
    • LOT 24-4 (W); WETLAND PARCEL                                    6.14                $513.08/acre tax
    • TR 51-2(W)                                                                               6.04                $2,499.31/acre tax
    • TR 56-10 THRU 56-12W                                                         5.21                $261.30/acre tax
    • TR 1-2(W)                                                                                 5.02                $663.29/acre tax
    • SILVER CAROLINA; LOT 42W                                             4.24                $681.85/acre tax
    • TR 56-1(W)                                                                               3.63                $390.12/acre tax
    • WETLAND PAR LT 24-5 (W);                                              3.34                $474.75/acre tax
    • TR 55-2(W)                                                                               2.89                $531.71/acre tax
    • TR 55-3(W)                                                                               1.98                $529.03/acre tax
    • WETLANDS 43(W)                                                                  1.96                $538.79/acre tax
    • TRACT 37(W)                                                                           1.87                $684.50/acre tax
    • LT 58-A(W) & 58-B(W)                                                          1.73                $1,097.55/acre tax
    • DYE GC AT BAREFOOT RSRT; TR 56-8(W)                      1.67                $491.34/acre tax
    • WETLAND PARCEL; LOT 59-2(W)                                     1.29                $1,519.68/acre tax
    • BAREFOOT RESORT; TR 1-3(W)                                        1.18                $662.11/acre tax
    • WETLAND PAR LT 24-3 (W);                                              1.00                $794.40/acre tax
    • WETLD & BUFFER; LT24-2(W)&24-1(W):                        0.86                $1,294.95/acre tax
    • WETLAND PARCEL; LOT 46-9 (W)                                    0.84                $1,312.96/acre tax
    • WETLAND PARCEL; LOT 46-10 (W)                                  0.46                $1,577.44/acre tax
    • WETLAND PARCEL; LOT 59-1 (W)                                    0.39                $1,505.07/acre tax
    • BAREFOOT RESORT; WETLANDS 25(W)                         0.16                $504.63/acre tax
    • BAREFOOT RESORT; WETLAND PARCEL 1-4W             0.13                $2,058.21/acre tax
    • BAREFOOT RESORT; TR 38-1(W)                                      0.08                $188,245.88/acre tax
    • BAREFOOT RESORT; WETLAND PAR 56-9W                 0.04                $3,132.65/acre tax

I have attached a spreadsheet with the county data and map of the parcels. There are occasional discrepancies between legal acreage and actual acreage. While all non-BRRA owned wetlands total 615.92 legal acres, the actual area is only 569.01 acres. The 2021 tax bill for the non-BRRA parcels is $3,761.16.

In the spreadsheet I have highlighted several anomalies that fall outside the typical distribution. I do not fully understand why.

I see that the one 7.5-acre parcel owned by Barefoot Lakes Investments has by far the lowest tax rate. Others are just all over the place.

What is the chance of getting a conservation easement for the Barefoot Resort wetlands?

What is going on with this?

Gregory Snow

  • Enclosure 1
  • Enclosure 2
  • Jerry’s reply (cc: Robert Lee)
  • Jerry’s second reply

I heard nothing until 1/11/2022 when I received an email copy of the filed deed.

What exists in the “presents”.

35 existing of 39 submitted wetlands parcels

This exactly matches the data I had shared with the board on Nov 1, 2021.

  • 558.62 actual acres.
  • $270,907 tax value.
  • $3,666.11 2021 property tax. (all taxes did get paid up before the transfer)
  • $144 to $2,500 2021 tax per acre. What a spread.

I am troubled by the BRRA boards lack of concern for the expenses and risk associated with this “gift”.

Quit-Claim vs. Limited Warranty Deed

A quit-claim deed exposes the grantee (BRRA) to potential title ownership or claim conflicts. Considered bad practice (Contracts 101).
The BRRA would be the defendant for litigation of historic use of the property.over past owner actions.

A limited warranty deed provides a level of protection to BRRA. This is a best practice.
The past owner(s) will have to defend any litigation concerning the pre-transfer property.

False, Fraudulent, or SHAM Legal Process

South Carolina has a continuing problem with materially false, fraudulent, or a sham legal process as reported in this memorandum from South Carolina Supreme Court.

  • 4 false parcel tax-IDs submitted.
  • No establishment of jurisdiction over BRRA.
  • No approval by BRRA.

I call on the BRRA to petition the Horry County Register of Deeds to decide this deed false, fraudulent, or a sham legal process under SC Code Section 30-9-30(B)(2)

Barefoot Resort Tyranny

I sent the following “email” to all my state legislators:

I am a resident of Barefoot Resort in North Myrtle Beach, Horry County, South Carolina. Barefoot Resort contains over twenty separate home and condo associations. All associations rely on the Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc. for maintenance of the common “spine” roads and swimming pool amenity.

The Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc does not act or conduct themselves in accordance with their charter rights, privileges, and State Law within their NONPROFIT incorporation.

  1. The Joint Committee board is not elected by members.
  2. The Joint Committee does not recognize themselves as a mutual benefit corporation.
  3. The Joint committee provides bogus financial reports.
  4. The Joint Committee board members secretly file unauthorized agreements that benefit their own businesses with costs passed along to the community as maintenance expenses.

Please compel the South Carolina Attorney General to investigate the acts and conduct of the Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc. The Joint Committee’s legal team includes the Grand Strands infamous Robert “Shep” Guyton.

The community lacks resources to counter this pillage on its own.

I pray the AG will dissolve the extralegal Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc. and free the Barefoot Resort community from its tyranny.

Respectfully,

Gregory B. Snow
5210 Windy Pines Dr
North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582-8400

For evidentiary details see http://barefootmayor.gbsnow.net/?p=199

My community and HOA representatives are disappointing in their acceptance of tyranny from the racket associated Barefoot Resort Joint Committee, Inc. The city and U.S. Courts have accepted it too. I tried the State dysfunction once before, but it’s time to try again.

I beg my fellow neighbors, community members, HOA representatives and everyone else to spread the word of this tyranny. Call your friends. Call your legislators. Call the media.

Don’t call me. I don’t have the energy to take on swindler extraordinaire Shep. But it would be nice to hear his story of the Barefoot archeological sites.

Your United States Senators are

    Senior – Lindsey O. Graham
    Junior – Timothy E. “Tim” Scott

Your United States Representative is

    District 7 – Tom Rice

Your South Carolina State Senator is

    SC Senate District 28 – Greg Hembree

Your South Carolina State Representative is

    SC House District 104 – William H. Bailey