South Carolina lawAttorney FeesAccountingContracts

Security Deposit Return in South Carolina

September 27, 2026 · LawDiver Research Team

Start with S.C. Code Ann. § 27-40-410. In South Carolina, The cap is No statewide cap. The return deadline is 30 days after termination of the tenancy / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions. Interest: No statewide interest requirement. That is the question this guide answers for getting a security deposit back. Wrongful withholding can support damages of three times the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

Deposit limits in South Carolina

No statewide cap

When the deposit must be returned

30 days after termination of the tenancy / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions

How the South Carolina rule applies

Apply the South Carolina authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.

A residential tenant moves out of a South Carolina rental and the landlord has not returned the deposit.

Check the cap that applied when the deposit was collected: No statewide cap.
Calendar the return deadline: 30 days after termination of the tenancy / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions
Interest, if any: No statewide interest requirement.
If the landlord keeps money without the required accounting: Wrongful withholding can support damages of three times the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

South Carolina does not cap residential deposits statewide. Landlords must return deposits with itemization within 30 days. Treble damages can apply for wrongful withholding. Magistrate court handles many disputes.

Interest and accounting

No statewide interest requirement.

Penalties for wrongful withholding

Wrongful withholding can support damages of three times the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

Practical process for tenants and landlords

Document the unit with dated photos or video at move-in and move-out, keep the lease and any inspection checklist, and send a dated written demand if the deadline passes without a lawful accounting.

Case law: security deposits in South Carolina

Bobby T. JUDY, Respondent, v. Ronnie JUDY, Appellant

Bobby T. JUDY, Respondent, v. Ronnie JUDY, Appellant, 384 S.C. 634 (2009)

…nt against a landlord for unlawful conversion of a tenant’s security deposit. 326 S.C. 492, 498, 484 S.E.2d 119, 122 (Ct.App.1997). The Court held evidence of the landlord’s treatment of prior tenants and his attempts to keep their security deposits was admissible to support the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, even though the other tenants were not parties to the case. I…

Practitioners open Bobby T. JUDY, Respondent, v. Ronnie JUDY, Appellant when South Carolina security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "S.C. 492, 498, 484 S.E.2d 119, 122 (Ct.App.1997)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Johnson PREVATTE, Appellant v. ASBURY ARMS, Respondent

Johnson PREVATTE, Appellant v. ASBURY ARMS, Respondent, 302 S.C. 413 (1990)

…is former landlord, Asbury Arms Apartments, for return of a security deposit. 1 Asbury Arms responded by claiming Prevatte owed $26.00 for unpaid rent, and $58.81 for cleaning and replacement of damaged draperies. The case was tried in magistrate’s court by a jury. The jury awarded Asbury $26.00 for unpaid rent and $12.00 for cleaning expenses. It denied Asbury’s claim for dama…

South Carolina opinions such as Johnson PREVATTE, Appellant v. ASBURY ARMS, Respondent are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "Asbury Arms Apartments, for return of a security deposit. 1 Asbury Arms responded by claiming Prevatte owed $26.00 for unpaid rent, and $58.81 for cleaning and replacement of damaged draperies. The case was tried in magistrate’s court by a jury. The jury awarded Asbury $26." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Thomas GENOVESE and Linda Genovese, Respondents, v. Joseph BERGER — Anderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting

Thomas GENOVESE and Linda Genovese, Respondents, v. Joseph BERGER — Anderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting, 327 S.C. 567 (1997)

…temized list of damages totaling $1369.54. Because tenant’s security deposit only covered $1000 of the damage, she wrote a check for the balance and “assumed that was the list of the damages I was required to pay for.” When tenant wrote this check, she assumed her liability under the lease terminated. Warner did not tell the landlords she had released tenant from her obligation…

South Carolina opinions such as Thomas GENOVESE and Linda Genovese, Respondents, v. Joseph BERGER — Anderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "Because tenant’s security deposit only covered $1000 of the damage, she wrote a check for the balance and “assumed that was the list of the damages I was required to pay for.” When tenant wrote this check, she assumed her liability under the lease terminated." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Jay H. REYNOLDS and Theresa H. Reynolds, Plaintiffs, v. the RYLAND GROUP, INC. and Ryland Homes, Defendants; Paul C

Jay H. REYNOLDS and Theresa H. Reynolds, Plaintiffs, v. the RYLAND GROUP, INC. and Ryland Homes, Defendants; Paul C, 340 S.C. 331 (2000)

…mer tenant of defendant brought an action seeking return of security deposit alleging conversion and violations of Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The defendant in this case argued that SCUTPA did not apply because the contract between the parties was a private contract and that the SCRLTA provides an exclusive remedy. The cour…

On security deposits, Jay H. REYNOLDS and Theresa H. Reynolds, Plaintiffs, v. the RYLAND GROUP, INC. and Ryland Homes, Defendants; Paul C speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The defendant in this case argued that SCUTPA did not apply because the contract between the parties was a private contract and that the SCRLTA provides an exclusive remedy." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

FREWIL, LLC v. Madison PRICE and Carter Smith

FREWIL, LLC v. Madison PRICE and Carter Smith, 411 S.C. 525 (2015)

…ease and other documents including a policies agreement and security deposit agreement. In August 2009, when they arrived to move in, Price and Smith discovered the apartment did not contain a washer/dryer or dishwasher. They told Dietz the apartment was unacceptable, and they discussed moving into another Frewil unit that did contain a washer/dryer and dishwasher or to which a…

On security deposits, FREWIL, LLC v. Madison PRICE and Carter Smith speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "In August 2009, when they arrived to move in, Price and Smith discovered the apartment did not contain a washer/dryer or dishwasher." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Atlantic Joint Stock Land Bank of Raleigh v. Latta Et Al.

Atlantic Joint Stock Land Bank of Raleigh v. Latta Et Al., 164 S.C. 56 (1932)

…ptions on respondent’s (plaintiff’s) forms, securing option deposits and to bring the same to Raleigh on Friday, August 7, 1931; that Byrd followed such instructions but in violation of its agreement, respondent (plaintiff) on August 6, 1931, began foreclosure of its mortgage.” The plaintiff demurred to the counterclaim on five grounds, and, upon a hearing, his Honor, Circuit J…

On security deposits, Atlantic Joint Stock Land Bank of Raleigh v. Latta Et Al. speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "Raleigh on Friday, August 7, 1931; that Byrd followed such instructions but in violation of its agreement, respondent (plaintiff) on August 6, 1931, began foreclosure of its mortgage." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

E AND S INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. RICHLAND BOWL, INC., and United Bowling Centers, Inc., Appellants

E AND S INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. RICHLAND BOWL, INC., and United Bowling Centers, Inc., Appellants, 264 S.C. 582 (1975)

…ary to consider this matter. The respondent had been paid a security deposit of Thirty-five thousand Two hundred ($35,200.00) Dollars which was to be released at the rate of One hundred Forty-six and 66/100ths ($146.66) Dollars per month, so as to be totally repaid to the tenant at the conclusion of the twenty (20) year term. Hence, while the monthly installment was to be Two t…

On security deposits, E AND S INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. RICHLAND BOWL, INC., and United Bowling Centers, Inc., Appellants speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "The respondent had been paid a security deposit of Thirty-five thousand Two hundred ($35,200.00) Dollars which was to be released at the rate of One hundred Forty-six and 66/100ths ($146." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Key takeaways

Maximum deposit: No statewide cap
Return deadline: 30 days after termination of the tenancy / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions
Interest: No statewide interest requirement.
Penalties: Wrongful withholding can support damages of three times the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
Primary authority: S.C. Code Ann. § 27-40-410.

Frequently asked questions

How much can a landlord charge for a security deposit in South Carolina?