HOME FEDERAL FOR THE PEOPLE OF YORK COUNTY June 11, 1982 Read, 6-14-8 Mr. John Hayes Hayes, Brunson & Gatlin Rock Hill, S. C. 297 30 Dear John: At your request, I am writing this letter as President of the oldest financial institution in York County who has been financing homes and property since 1903. I have studied the Catawba Indian Land Claim for about four years and have lived my entire life in this claim area. I am fully aware of the negative impact the claim has had and continues to have on the economic developments of this county. As President of Home Federal Savings and Loan the claim has forced our association to require the borrowers to pay the cost of Title Insurance. Up to the date of the claims, we only required Title Insurance on commercial loans. After the claim was filed our prospective borrowers were unable to purchase Title Insurance for commercial loans, land acquisition loans and farms that include acreage. One title company will not agree to indemnify for attorney fees if home loan is litigated and all title companies will indemnify only against loss or damage by reason of unmarketability of title on account of said defect. In March 1979, Rock Hill officials would not apply for federal low-rent public housing units because of the Catawba Indian land claim. In my opinion it has discouraged people from North Carolina to ride 20 miles across state line to purchase property in claim area. For these reasons, I offer our support to the proposed legislation. It is clear that this is a case where government has the essential part to play and avoid penalizing those who in good faith invested in their homes. It has caused potential damage to our people and to the property owners in the claim area. John Gill Insurance EO. Box 3608 CRS June 20, 1978 Governor James B. Edwards Office of the Governor Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Dear Governor Edwards: On April 4, 1976, Mr. Weldon Burns and I contracted to sell 191 acres of owned land in the Fort Mill Township of York County, South Carolina. Under the terms of the contract, the buyer after paying a downpayment, would assume two loans outstanding against the property and would give us a mortgage on the balance owed. One of the loans was with the Federal Land Bank and the other with Southern Bank and Trust Company. On October 10, 1976, the above contract was closed with a deed conveyed to the buyer and mortgage to us recorded in the York Court House. The buyer subsequently applied for and was approved two different development loans. The loans were for the release of lots from our mortgage and the water and sewer development of the entire project. Very close to the closing of one of these development loans, the buyer was informed by his Title Insurance Company that they were withdrawing their commitment on the loan due to an impending Catawba Indian claim. Due to this withdrawal, the buyer could not make the payments and taxes on the loan. The buyer has tried time and time again to resolve the matter, but to no avail. The "upshot" of it all is that we have paid out $16,849.00 in taxes and interest since we sold the property. The bank has called me on the loan, and I have no way to pay it. Does this mean that I have to destroy my credit rating and reputation because of some alledged miscalculation of one hundred years ago? We bought the land in good faith and sold it the EXHIBIT "K" GENT Governor James B. Edwards Office of the Governor John Gill Insurance PO. Box 3608 CRS same way, but my faith in the governments of South Carolina and We need immediate relief. We propose that the United States Government or South Carolina, or both, indemnify the insurance companies that are willing to write title insurance. The insurance companies would not be indemnifying all of the claim property, but rather just that which was sold. My business life depends on something happening quick. My business needs relief, my wife and three college students are all dependent on the old American way of life, invest and hope for a good return. Sincerely, John A. bill John A. Gill JAG: ag P.S. In March of 1981 we struck a new deal with the same buyer whereby we got half the money up front and the rest over a two year period. Four and one-half years is too long to consumate a simple buy and sell agreement. Do you think the Catawbas or the government is willing to reimburse us for the interest we paid during that period? John A. Gill At the request of the members of the South Carolina Legislature representing After careful review of these bills, I am writing at this time to endorse the concept set forth in the "Ancient Indian Land Claims Settlement Act," and urge favorable action on this legislation. I believe that this Act will protect the present landowners and occupants who are blameless in regard to what has given rise to this dispute. Any wrong or injustice visited upon the Indians a century ago should not be rectified at the expense of the present landowners and occupants. I express no opinion concerning the validity of the claims. However, it appears unfair that the present occupancy and ownership remains in jeopardy and susceptible to such an awesome cloud in title even in light of the most recent Judgment Order of Senior District Judge Joseph P. Willson. This Settlement Act would clear the title for the present landowners and would otherwise bring about a faster resolution than through the Court system. Therefore, I believe that the "Ancient Indian Land Claims Settlement Act" of 1982 provides for a fair and equitable system of resolving the dispute. |