DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in South Carolina: what the law says

South Carolina rewrote this in June 2026, and the new law is fast: you file a sworn petition, a judge can order the removal the moment you file it, and the hearing is held within twenty-four hours. But a judge signs it — nobody is put out of a South Carolina house on your word alone. The criminal side is narrower than owners expect: refusing to leave is an offence that carries a fine or thirty days, and the warrantless-arrest statute for sheriffs and deputies is written around what an officer sees for himself. Every answer below is quoted from the statute it came from.

Every answer on this page is quoted from the statute it came from and linked to the source, so you can read the law yourself. Last checked against the statutes on 2026-07-14.

What to do now — this part is ours, not the law

There is no 30-day rule. Nobody becomes a tenant by standing in your house long enough — not in thirty days, not in ninety. They are not a tenant on day one and they are not a tenant on day ninety. What time does change is how hard they are to remove, and how much of your money it takes. That is a reason to move today, not a deadline you have already missed.

If someone is in the property right now

  1. Do not go in, and do not change the locks. It is the first thing everyone wants to do and it is how the owner becomes the defendant. Read that question above before you touch anything.
  2. Call the police non-emergency line. Ask them to look at it as a criminal trespass rather than a landlord–tenant dispute. Those are different outcomes and the words matter.
  3. Have your proof of ownership in your hand when they arrive — the deed, a recent tax bill, your ID. The officer's whole decision turns on whether he believes you own it.
  4. Photograph everything, and write down every date. When you last saw it empty. When you found them. What was said. Who you called, and when.
  5. Call a lawyer the same day. Not next week. The clock on every route above has already started.
The full checklist — what to record and what to ask →

If it has not happened yet

Everything on this page gets easier the earlier you do it. Photograph the property empty, keep the utility bills, and write down who is allowed inside — before you lock up and walk away. None of that is expensive. All of it is worth more than it looks at 2am.

The checklist for leaving a property vacant →

Is a squatter a tenant — and what rights do they have?

No. The law South Carolina signed in June 2026 says in as many words that a person occupying your property without permission gets none of the protections a tenant gets. That is also the definition that opens the fast court route — but only for a home that has not been leased, and only against someone who was never your tenant.

›Read the law

If a trespasser counts as a tenant, the owner is routed into housing court and every fast option closes.

S.C. Code § 27-37-200(5) — "unlawful occupant" defined; added by H. 3387 (Act No. 252, R 269), signed 2026-06-30

“"Unlawful occupant or occupants" means any person or persons who detain, occupy, or trespass on property containing a residential dwelling without the permission of the property owner, who otherwise have no legal right to occupy the property under state law, and who are not afforded any protections provided to a tenant under state law.”

Quoted from the enrolled conference-report text of H. 3387 as adopted 2026-06-25 and signed by the Governor on 2026-06-30, on the Legislature's own server. Read the conditions on the sworn petition in § 27-37-230(A) before assuming this reaches your situation. Three of them do real work: "(7) the property has not been leased to any person and the unlawful occupant or occupants are not current or former tenants of the property pursuant to any agreement with the property owner; (8) the unlawful occupant or occupants are not immediate family members of the property owner; and (9) there is no pending litigation related to the real property between the property owner and any known unlawful occupant or occupants." A former tenant who overstays, or a relative, is outside this article — that is the ordinary ejectment-of-tenants track in the same chapter.

Read it at the source →

Can I just change the locks?

Not on your own — and never in another state. South Carolina's new statute does use the words 'changes the locks', but only after a judge has signed the removal order and an officer has served it, with that officer standing there and billing you by the hour. Move first and the person you put out can sue you, take the house back, and collect.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Lawful in a handful of states, a crime in most. Getting this wrong turns the victim into the defendant.

1 · S.C. Code § 27-37-290 — the enforcement official's fee, and standing by to keep the peace (Act No. 252, 2026)

“The authorized enforcement official is entitled to the same fee for the service of the ex parte order granted under this article as that provided for the execution of a warrant for the ejection of a trespasser pursuant to Section 15-67-630. After the authorized enforcement official serves the order, the property owner or representative of the property owner may request that the authorized enforcement official stand by to keep the peace while the property owner or representative of the property owner changes the locks and removes the personal property of the occupants from the premises to or near the property line. When such a request is made, the authorized enforcement official may charge a reasonable hourly rate, and the person requesting the authorized enforcement official to stand by and keep the peace is responsible for paying the reasonable hourly rate set by the authorized enforcement official. The authorized enforcement official is not liable to the unlawful occupant or occupants or to any other party for the loss, destruction, or damage of property. The property owner or representative of the property owner is not liable to an unlawful occupant or any other party for the loss, destruction, or damage to the personal property unless the removal was wrongful.”

Read the sequence, not the sentence. Every step in it is downstream of a court order a judge has already signed and an officer has already served — § 27-37-270 says the official enforces the order "once the court grants the order under this article." And read the last clause: the owner's protection from liability runs out where "the removal was wrongful."

Read it at the source →

2 · S.C. Code § 27-37-300 — civil action for removal without just cause (Act No. 252, 2026)

“A person may bring a civil cause of action if the person was removed from the property under this article without just cause. Such person may seek restored possession to the real property, actual damages to personal property when personal property was removed, statutory damages in the amount of one thousand dollars, and reimbursement of court costs.”

The section goes on to offset those damages against damage the removed person did to the building, which the owner has to prove, and to cap actual damages at the value of the damaged personal property. It does not offset the thousand dollars away.

Read it at the source →

3 · S.C. Code § 27-40-660 — tenant's remedies for landlord's unlawful ouster or exclusion (read in full 2026-07-14)

“If a landlord unlawfully removes or excludes the tenant from the premises, or wilfully diminishes services to tenant by interrupting or causing interruption of essential services, the tenant may recover possession or terminate the rental agreement and, in either case, recover an amount equal to three months' periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained by him, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney's fees.”

Note the scope, and note what we did not find. This section speaks of a LANDLORD and a TENANT, and § 27-37-200(5) says an unlawful occupant is not afforded a tenant's protections. We looked for a South Carolina appellate decision resolving whether § 27-40-660 reaches a person who was never a tenant and did not find one we could read. Untested is not the same as permitted — and the person who finds out which it is will be the defendant. DeedProof does not advise on this and never will.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

If police do act, what is the charge — and can they arrest for it?

Depends — and mostly on what the officer sees for himself. A person who refuses to leave when the owner orders them out is committing a South Carolina offense, but it carries a fine or thirty days, and the state's warrantless-arrest statute for sheriffs and deputies is written around a crime the officer sees happen, at the time or right after. Once a court has signed a removal order, that changes: breaking the order is a felony and the statute says the officer shall arrest.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

A charge that only supports a citation does not remove anyone from a house. This is the link that killed the previous market.

1 · S.C. Code § 16-11-620 — entering premises after warning or refusing to leave on request (read in full 2026-07-14)

“Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days.”

Read who gets to give the order: "the person in possession or his agent or representative". In the case this page is about, who is in possession is the whole dispute. The section adds that all municipal courts and magistrates may try violations of it, and that "All peace officers of the State and its subdivisions shall enforce the provisions hereof within their respective jurisdictions."

Read it at the source →

2 · S.C. Code § 16-11-790(B)–(C) — false listing, false lease or deed; added by H. 3387 (Act No. 252), signed 2026-06-30

“(B) A person who lists or advertises residential real property for sale knowing that the purported seller has no legal title or authority to sell the property, or rents or leases the property to another person knowing that he has no lawful ownership in the property or leasehold interest in the property, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. (C) A person who, with the intent to detain or remain upon real property, knowingly and willfully presents to another person a false document purporting to be a valid lease agreement, deed, or other instrument conveying real property rights is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Subsection (A) of the same new section makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years, to unlawfully occupy a residential dwelling and intentionally damage it by a thousand dollars or more. Quoted from the enrolled conference-report text. Note what (C) does and does not do: it makes the forged lease a crime; it does not tell the officer holding it how to know that it is forged.

Read it at the source →

3 · S.C. Code § 17-13-30 — officers may arrest without warrant for offenses committed in view (read in full 2026-07-14)

“The sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of this State may arrest without warrant any and all persons who, within their view, violate any of the criminal laws of this State if such arrest be made at the time of such violation of law or immediately thereafter.”

THIS IS THE LINK THAT KILLED A PREVIOUS MARKET ELSEWHERE. Read the words "within their view" and "at the time of such violation of law or immediately thereafter" — and read them as what they are: a grant of authority. The section's own headnote is "Officers may arrest without warrant for offenses committed in view," and it does not say that this is the only warrantless arrest a deputy may make. Whether a person found living in a vacant building is violating § 16-11-620 within the officer's view is the question the whole encounter turns on, and it is not ours to answer. Note the neighbouring sections, which point the other way: § 17-13-10 lets ANY person arrest on view of a felony OR on "certain information that a felony has been committed" — no in-view requirement — and § 16-11-790(A) and § 27-37-340(C) of the new Act both create felonies. § 5-7-110 vests municipal police officers "with all the powers and duties conferred by law upon constables". These are the provisions, in order. We draw no conclusion about how they combine.

Read it at the source →

4 · S.C. Code §§ 27-37-280, 27-37-340(A), (C) — arrest for violating the removal order (Act No. 252, 2026)

“Section 27-37-280. If appropriate, the authorized enforcement official may arrest any person found in the dwelling for trespass, outstanding warrants, or any other legal cause. … Section 27-37-340. (A) When a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a party, against whom an ex parte order under this article has been entered and who has notice of such order entered, has committed an act in violation of such order, the officer shall arrest the offending party-respondent regardless of whether the violation occurred in the presence of the arresting officer. … (C) A person who violates the terms and conditions of an ex parte order under this article is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than three years or fined not more than three thousand dollars, or both.”

The ellipses join three separate provisions of the same article, quoted in the order the article prints them; each is reproduced verbatim. Read the pivot in subsection (A): the in-view limit that governs § 17-13-30 is expressly switched off — "regardless of whether the violation occurred in the presence of the arresting officer" — but only once an ex parte order exists and the respondent has notice of it. § 27-37-310 adds that the article "do[es] not limit the rights of a property owner or limit the authority of a law enforcement officer to arrest an unlawful occupant for trespassing, vandalism, theft, or other crimes." These are the provisions, in order. We have drawn no conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What decides whether police arrest or walk away?

Permission — whether the officer at the door believes the person inside had it, and whether anyone there can tell that you are the real owner. South Carolina now makes the forged lease a crime in its own right. It still asks you only to swear that you own the building, and names nobody whose job it is to check.

DeedProof solves this

We verify you own the property and file your notarized statement where police can check it. How it works →

›Read the law — 2 provisions

Every other question here is downstream of this one. The whole encounter, in one decision, made in a doorway in the dark.

1 · S.C. Code § 27-37-230(A) — what the verified petition must set forth (Act No. 252, 2026)

“Upon the filing of a verified petition under this section, and for good cause shown in the petition, the court shall immediately issue an ex parte order to remove an unlawful occupant or occupants from property containing a residential dwelling. The assertion of sufficient evidence that the person or persons are unlawfully occupying property containing a residential dwelling shall constitute good cause for purposes of this section. The petition shall set forth the following: (1) the petitioner is the property owner or a representative of the property owner;”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read the whole of the new Article 3 (S.C. Code §§ 27-37-200 to 27-37-350) in the enrolled text of H. 3387, and §§ 16-11-620 and 17-13-30 in full on the Legislature's own server. We looked for any provision telling a judge, a clerk, a magistrate or an officer how to establish that the person who signed the petition actually owns the building — a deed check, a registry, a records lookup, anything. We found no such provision. Note the second sentence above: the petitioner's own assertion is itself what the statute makes "good cause." Confirm against the official code before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

2 · S.C. Code § 16-11-790(C) — presenting a false lease or deed to remain on the property (Act No. 252, 2026)

“A person who, with the intent to detain or remain upon real property, knowingly and willfully presents to another person a false document purporting to be a valid lease agreement, deed, or other instrument conveying real property rights is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

A forged lease is a lease until somebody establishes that it is not, and this section names no one whose job that is at the door. South Carolina wrote the offence and left the proof to whoever is standing there at two in the morning.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

A sworn petition to a judge, who can sign the removal order the same day — then a sheriff or constable carries it out. There is also an older route through a magistrate, and it has a trapdoor: the person inside can stop that warrant by convincing the magistrate they have some plausible claim to be there — a lease, a deed, anything that looks real — and putting up a bond.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The route sets the real cost. A summary track is weeks; a full civil suit is months.

1 · S.C. Code § 27-37-210 — the petition (Act No. 252, 2026)

“Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, a property owner or representative of the property owner may seek relief for the removal of a person or persons unlawfully occupying property containing a residential dwelling under this article by filing a verified petition with the clerk of court or chief magistrate of the county in which the property is located.”

§ 27-37-200(1) says who then does the removing: "'Authorized enforcement official' means the county sheriff for the county in which the property is located or any county, city, or township constable, pursuant to Section 22-9-10, for the county, city, or township in which the property is located." And § 27-37-320: "All proceedings under this article are in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies, unless otherwise specifically provided herein."

Read it at the source →

2 · S.C. Code § 27-37-230(B) — the order, and the 24-hour hearing (Act No. 252, 2026)

“An ex parte order to have the unlawful occupant or occupants removed from property containing a residential dwelling entered by the court shall take effect when entered and shall remain in effect until there is valid service of process and a hearing is held on the motion. Such hearing shall be held within twenty-four hours of filing the verified petition unless good cause is shown for a delay. The court shall deny the ex parte order and dismiss the petition if the petitioner is not authorized to seek relief or does not show good cause.”

Read the last sentence: the judge is the check, and must dismiss where the petitioner "is not authorized to seek relief or does not show good cause." § 27-37-270 then says: "Once the court grants the order under this article, the authorized enforcement official shall enforce such order by removing the person or persons unlawfully occupying the property." Note too § 27-37-230(C): failure to serve the ex parte order on the occupant "shall not affect the validity or enforceability of such order."

Read it at the source →

3 · S.C. Code § 15-67-610 — duty of magistrate in case of trespass (read in full 2026-07-14)

“If any person shall have gone into or shall hereafter go into possession of any lands or tenements of another without his consent or without warrant of law, the owner of the land so trespassed upon may apply to any magistrate to serve a notice on such trespasser to quit the premises, and if, after the expiration of five days from the personal service of such notice, such trespasser refuses or neglects to quit then such magistrate shall issue his warrant to any sheriff or constable requiring him forthwith to eject such trespasser, using such force as may be necessary.”

AND HERE IS THE TRAPDOOR, in the very next section. § 15-67-620: "If the person in possession shall, before the expiration of the five days, appear before such magistrate and satisfy him that he has a bona fide color of claim to the possession of such premises and enter into bond to the person claiming the land, with good and sufficient security … the magistrate shall not issue his warrant as provided in Section 15-67-610." § 15-67-640 adds an appeal, and bars the magistrate from issuing the warrant for five days after he announces his decision. The 2026 article has no such clause; the occupant's chance there comes at the 24-hour hearing instead.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long does it take, and what does it cost?

Days, not months — if your situation fits the new law, which means the home was never leased to anyone, the person inside was never your tenant and is not a relative, and there is no court case already running between you. Then the judge can sign the removal order the moment you file, and the hearing runs within twenty-four hours unless there is good reason to delay. Filing costs what an ordinary civil case in the court of common pleas costs, and after the hearing the judge can order the occupant to pay your repair bill and your court costs.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The two numbers every owner wants, and the one nobody warns them about: you do not get it back.

1 · S.C. Code § 27-37-230(B) — the 24-hour clock (Act No. 252, 2026)

“Such hearing shall be held within twenty-four hours of filing the verified petition unless good cause is shown for a delay.”

THE "IF IT FITS" IN THE HEADLINE IS § 27-37-230(A), and these are its words: "(7) the property has not been leased to any person and the unlawful occupant or occupants are not current or former tenants of the property pursuant to any agreement with the property owner; (8) the unlawful occupant or occupants are not immediate family members of the property owner; and (9) there is no pending litigation related to the real property between the property owner and any known unlawful occupant or occupants." Fall outside those and this fast route is not open to you at all — the timetable is the ordinary one. Then note that "unless good cause is shown for a delay" is doing real work in the 24-hour sentence, and the article does not define what will satisfy it; nothing in Article 3 sets an outer limit on the delay. And the article is two weeks old — it took effect on the Governor's approval, 2026-06-30 — so no one yet knows how a South Carolina clerk's office will run it in practice.

Read it at the source →

2 · S.C. Code § 27-37-220 — filing fees and court costs (Act No. 252, 2026)

“Filing fees and court costs under this article shall be the same as filing fees and court costs required when filing a claim in the court of common pleas.”

NO DOLLAR FIGURE APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, and that is deliberate. The article names none, and South Carolina sets its filing and service fees outside it. Every fee figure on this site appears verbatim in a document we fetched, or it does not appear. Note also § 27-37-290: the officer who stands by while the property is cleared "may charge a reasonable hourly rate", and the owner pays it.

Read it at the source →

3 · S.C. Code § 27-37-250(6)–(8) — what the court may order the occupant to pay (Act No. 252, 2026)

“(6) order the respondent to pay all costs of repair to the petitioner's premises or dwelling unit relating to damages caused by the respondent; (7) order the respondent to pay all costs associated with service of any ex parte order authorized against the respondent; or (8) order the respondent to pay court costs.”

These sit under § 27-37-250, which opens: "When the court has, after a hearing on the petition, issued an order for relief to permanently exclude an unlawful occupant or occupants from the petitioner's property, it may additionally…" — so they follow the hearing, not the first order, and each is a "may", not a "shall". Attorney's fees are not on the list.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can a sheriff remove them on the owner's affidavit alone, with no court?

No — a judge signs it first. South Carolina comes close: you swear a petition, and the court can order the removal immediately, without the other side present. But it is the court that orders it and a sheriff or constable who carries the order out, and the court must throw the petition out if you were not entitled to bring it.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Where a state has passed this, it hands the owner the whole mechanism for free. This field tracks the existential risk.

1 · S.C. Code § 27-37-230(A) — the court issues the order (Act No. 252, 2026)

“Upon the filing of a verified petition under this section, and for good cause shown in the petition, the court shall immediately issue an ex parte order to remove an unlawful occupant or occupants from property containing a residential dwelling.”

"The court shall immediately issue" is the whole answer to this column. It is fast, and it happens without the occupant being heard — but a judicial officer signs it, and § 27-37-230(B) requires that same court to "deny the ex parte order and dismiss the petition if the petitioner is not authorized to seek relief or does not show good cause."

Read it at the source →

2 · S.C. Code § 27-37-270 — enforcement of the order (Act No. 252, 2026)

“Once the court grants the order under this article, the authorized enforcement official shall enforce such order by removing the person or persons unlawfully occupying the property.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: our own queue had South Carolina down as a state where a sheriff removes on the owner's affidavit with no court. We read Article 3 in full and found no such path in it. The bill that would have created one — H. 5375 of the 2023-2024 session, "Removal of unauthorized persons", which had the owner hand a verified complaint to the sheriff — was introduced on 2024-04-09, referred to House Judiciary, and its status page records no action after that. Confirm against the Legislature's own status pages before relying on this.

Read it at the source →

3 · S.C. Code § 15-67-620 — when the warrant shall not be issued (read in full 2026-07-14)

“If the person in possession shall, before the expiration of the five days, appear before such magistrate and satisfy him that he has a bona fide color of claim to the possession of such premises and enter into bond to the person claiming the land, with good and sufficient security, to be approved by the magistrate, conditioned for the payment of all such costs and expenses as the person claiming to be the owner of the land may incur in the successful establishment of his claim and also for any damages which the owner of the land may sustain by reason of the possession being withheld from him, by any of the modes of proceeding now provided by law, the magistrate shall not issue his warrant as provided in Section 15-67-610.”

Note what the occupant must do to stop it: satisfy a magistrate of a "bona fide color of claim" AND post a bond with security the magistrate approves. That is more than the single signed page that closes Georgia's fast lane, and it is still a judicial officer who decides. These are the provisions, in order. We have drawn no conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long before they can claim they own it?

Ten years — and the clock is on YOU, not on them. If you sue to get the property back within ten years of the last time you or a previous owner held it, the law starts from the assumption that whoever is inside is there WITH your permission, not against you. They have to prove otherwise, for the whole ten years.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The thing an owner of an empty building actually fears. Pure state statute.

1 · S.C. Code § 15-3-340 — action by individual for recovery of real property (read in full 2026-07-14)

“No action for the recovery of real property or for the recovery of the possession of real property may be maintained unless it appears that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the premises in question within ten years before the commencement of the action.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH: the statute states the ten years and nothing else. South Carolina courts require an occupier to prove far more than the passage of time — possession that is actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous and exclusive for the whole period. We do not quote a South Carolina decision here because we did not read one, and we do not put words in a court's mouth. Do not read the bare ten years as the whole rule; ask a South Carolina lawyer what the elements are.

Read it at the source →

2 · S.C. Code § 15-67-210 — presumption of possession; when occupation deemed under legal title (read in full 2026-07-14)

“In every action for the recovery of real property or the possession thereof the person establishing a legal title to the premises shall be presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time required by law. The occupation of such premises by any other person shall be deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title unless it appear that such premises have been held and possessed adversely to such legal title for ten years before the commencement of such action.”

Read it at the source →

3 · S.C. Code § 15-67-220 — effect of occupation under written instrument or court decree or judgment (read in full 2026-07-14)

“Whenever it shall appear (a)that the occupant or those under whom he claims entered into the possession of premises under claim of title, exclusive of any other right, founding such claim upon a written instrument as being a conveyance of the premises in question or upon the decree or judgment of a competent court and (b) that there has been a continued occupation and possession of the premises, or of some part of such premises, included in such instrument, decree or judgment under such claim for ten years, the premises so included shall be deemed to have been held adversely, except that when the premises so included consist of a tract divided into lots, the possession of one lot shall not be deemed a possession of any other lot of the same tract.”

This is the provision that makes a bad piece of paper dangerous to a building left alone for years — a forged deed is a "written instrument" until someone establishes that it is not. The missing space in "(a)that" is the Code's own; we quote it as printed. § 15-67-230 then sets out what counts as possession under such an instrument — cultivation or improvement, a substantial enclosure, and so on.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

This page is the law. What it costs you in South Carolina — the filing fee, the sheriff’s bill, the months, and whether you ever see the money again.

Your deed proves you own it. It does not prove you never rented it.

That is the officer’s real question, and the lease in their hand does not contradict your deed. You can swear it is a forgery — but a statement you write the morning after, against a lease dated last year, is worth very little. The version that counts has to already exist.

How DeedProof verifies owners and files the affidavit in advance →

› Every source on this page (6)

S.C. Code § 27-37-270 — enforcement of the order (Act No. 252, 2026)S.C. Code § 27-40-660 — tenant's remedies for landlord's unlawful ouster or exclusion (read in full 2026-07-14)S.C. Code § 16-11-620 — entering premises after warning or refusing to leave on request (read in full 2026-07-14)S.C. Code § 17-13-30 — officers may arrest without warrant for offenses committed in view (read in full 2026-07-14)S.C. Code § 15-67-220 — effect of occupation under written instrument or court decree or judgment (read in full 2026-07-14)S.C. Code § 15-3-340 — action by individual for recovery of real property (read in full 2026-07-14)

DeedProof is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. We cite primary sources; we do not interpret them for your situation. Laws change — confirm current requirements with the relevant government office or a licensed attorney.