AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 45-2-65 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH AN OPERATOR OF ANY RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK MAY HAVE ANY TRANSIENT GUEST OR OTHER GUEST OF THE PARK REMOVED; BY ADDING ARTICLE 3 TO CHAPTER 37, TITLE 27 SO AS TO ENTITLE THE ARTICLE "EJECTMENT OF UNLAWFUL OCCUPANTS OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING," TO DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS, AND TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY TO REMOVE PERSONS UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING; TO REDESIGNATE CHAPTER 37, TITLE 27 AS "EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS"; TO DESIGNATE THE EXISTING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 37, TITLE 27 AS ARTICLE 1 ENTITLED "EJECTMENT OF TENANTS"; TO ESTABLISH OFFENSES FOR PERSONS WHO UNLAWFULLY OCCUPY OR TRESPASS UPON RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, LIST OR ADVERTISE RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY FOR SALE WITHOUT LEGAL TITLE OR AUTHORITY TO DO SO, OR PRESENT FALSE DOCUMENTS TO ANOTHER PERSON WITH THE INTENT TO DETAIN OR REMAIN UPON REAL PROPERTY; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 27-40-800, RELATING TO THE APPEAL OF A JUDGMENT OF EJECTION, SO AS TO REQUIRE A TENANT TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT PROMISING TO PAY THE LANDLORD THE AMOUNT OF RENT AS IT BECOMES DUE IN EXCHANGE FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT FOR EJECTION, AMONG OTHER THINGS.
H3387 is a property-rights and eviction-related bill that creates a new legal process for removing “unlawful occupants” from residential dwellings, while also adding a separate set of rules for recreational vehicle parks. For residential property, the bill adds a new Article 3 to Title 27, Chapter 37, allowing a property owner or representative to file a verified petition with a clerk of court or magistrate to obtain an ex parte order for the removal of people occupying a dwelling without permission and without tenant protections. The bill defines key terms such as petitioner, respondent, authorized enforcement official, and unlawful occupant, and it authorizes courts to issue immediate removal orders, restraining provisions, and later permanent relief after a hearing.
The bill also creates new criminal penalties tied to unlawful occupancy. It adds Section 16-11-521, making it a felony offense called “criminal mischief” to unlawfully detain, occupy, or trespass upon a residential dwelling, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $3,000, or both. In addition, the bill provides for law enforcement enforcement of removal orders, allows officers to arrest for trespass or other legal cause, sets fees for service, permits property owners to change locks and remove personal property after service, and creates a civil remedy for people removed without just cause, including restored possession, damages, and statutory damages.
Beyond the new unlawful-occupant process, the bill redesignates existing ejectment provisions in Title 27 as “Ejectment of Tenants” and amends the appeal/stay rules for tenant ejectment cases in Section 27-40-800. It also adds or revises provisions governing recreational vehicle parks, allowing operators to remove transient guests or guests for drug activity, disturbances, rule violations, or nonpayment, with written notice and law-enforcement assistance. The bill expressly states that its procedures are in addition to other civil and criminal remedies and does not create a private cause of action to enforce the new article except where specifically provided.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial in recorded floor action: the House passed the bill 109-0, the Senate passed second reading 45-0 and third reading 42-0, and the House later adopted Amendment 1A by a 109-0 vote. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate organized opposition in the materials supplied. The unanimous votes suggest broad bipartisan support for the bill’s stated goal of giving property owners a faster remedy against unauthorized occupants.
The main points of potential contention, based on the text itself, are the breadth and speed of the new removal process and the criminal penalties attached to occupancy disputes. Critics could focus on the ex parte nature of the initial order, the involvement of law enforcement in what has traditionally been a civil possession dispute, and the felony classification for unlawful occupancy. Supporters are likely to emphasize the bill’s protections for property owners, its carve-out for lawful tenants, its anti-discrimination language, and the civil remedy for wrongful removal. The RV park provisions may also raise questions about utility shutoffs, notice requirements, and the scope of operator discretion, but no recorded opposition appears in the provided history.
The bill would significantly expand South Carolina law governing possession disputes by creating a new expedited ejectment process for unlawful occupants of residential dwellings and by adding a new felony offense for unlawful detention, occupation, or trespass of a residential dwelling. It would also amend existing ejectment statutes in Title 27, Chapter 37, including renaming the chapter and revising tenant appeal/stay procedures, while adding a separate statutory framework for removing unauthorized guests and nonpaying occupants from recreational vehicle parks. The measure would affect property owners, occupants without tenant protections, landlords, RV park operators, sheriffs, constables, magistrates, and courts handling possession and trespass matters.
The available voting record shows overwhelming support and no recorded opposition: the House and Senate votes were unanimous or near-unanimous, including final passage-related actions and adoption of Amendment 1A. With no committee transcripts provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate in the supplied materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been received positively by legislators as a property-protection and anti-squatting measure.
The most notable contention points are the bill’s use of an ex parte process to remove alleged unlawful occupants, the involvement of law enforcement in executing those orders, and the creation of felony penalties for conduct that may overlap with civil possession disputes. Potential concerns also include the risk of wrongful removal, the short timeline for hearings, and the scope of authority given to property owners to remove personal property and change locks. Supporters appear to prioritize rapid relief for owners and clearer remedies against unauthorized occupancy, while any critics would likely focus on due process, tenant-protection boundaries, and the possibility of overbroad application.