Case from Feb. 2012 to May 2012
S.C. law does not protect a materialman’s lien until after the materialman effectively serves a statement of written notice of the lien, including the value of the materials and a demand for payment, per S.C. Code Section 29-5-40.
Ferguson Fire v. Immedion, No. 4947 (S.C. Ct. App., Feb. 29, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 8)
Case from Oct. 2011 to Jan. 2012
A governmental entity does not have a continuing obligation to maintain a payment bond. Holding that a government entity has a continuing duty to maintain a payment bond under the Subcontractors and Suppliers Payment Protection Act (SPPA), S.C. Code Ann. Section 29-6-250, would effectively render government entities guarantors of the general contractor's payment bonds. If the government entity has a continuing duty to maintain a payment bond under the SPPA, the reason for requiring the bond in the first place is substantially eroded. The plain language of the statute does not require the government entity to ensure the maintenance of the bond throughout the course of the project, and the Court discerned no reason why the General Assembly would place such an onerous requirement on government entities.
Sloan Constr. v. Southco Grassing, No. 27061 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 38).